Court Opinion

ID: 9405803
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-29 15:01:30.959164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:24.638377
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 23-1492
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                        Dreshawn Charles Marquis Dudley

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Iowa
                                ____________

                             Submitted: June 26, 2023
                               Filed: June 29, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Dreshawn Dudley appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised
release and sentenced him to 8 months in prison and 12 months of supervised release.

      1
       The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern
District of Iowa.
His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief arguing the revocation
sentence was substantively unreasonable.

       Upon careful review, we conclude Dudley’s sentence was not unreasonable,
as there is no indication the district court overlooked a relevant factor, gave
significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of
judgment in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910,
914 (8th Cir. 2009) (reviewing the district court’s decision to revoke supervised
release for abuse of discretion); United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir.
2006) (explaining a revocation sentence may be unreasonable if the district court fails
to consider a relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factor, gives significant weight to an
improper or irrelevant factor, or commits a clear error of judgment); United States v.
White Face, 383 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir. 2004) (stating a district court need not
mechanically list every § 3553(a) factor when sentencing a defendant upon
revocation; all that is required is consideration of relevant matters and some reason
for the sentencing court’s decision).

      Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm.
                     ______________________________

                                         -2-