Court Opinion

ID: 9803768
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 16:00:41.421067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:06:18.504546
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 23-1870
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America,

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

                                           v.

                          Rahmaan Manzar El Herman,

                      lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
                                       ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                   for the Northern District of Iowa - Western
                                 ____________

                            Submitted: August 29, 2023
                              Filed: August 31, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Rahmaan El Herman appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised
release and sentenced him, below the advisory sentencing guideline range, to 12

      1
        The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa.
months and a day in prison, followed by 1 year of supervised release. His counsel has
moved for leave to withdraw and filed a brief challenging the revocation sentence.

       Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in sentencing El Herman below the guideline range. There is no indication
that the court gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor or committed
clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Miller,
557 F.3d 910, 915-18 (8th Cir. 2009); United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 922-24
(8th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2009).
The revocation sentence was below the statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(3), (h).

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

                                         -2-