Court Opinion

ID: 9940876
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-15 17:00:36.886163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:03.857997
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 23-3262
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                              Keelyn Morelle Stokes

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

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

                           Submitted: February 12, 2024
                            Filed: February 15, 2024
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before LOKEN, BENTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Keelyn Stokes served his 85-month sentence for being a felon in possession of
a firearm and commenced a three-year term of supervised release in February 2021.
Supervised release was revoked and he was sentenced to time served in February
2023. In August, the probation office petitioned to revoke supervised release based
on four new law violations, including charges of domestic battery and theft pending
in state court. At the revocation hearing, Stokes did not dispute the violations and the
parties jointly recommended a within-range revocation sentence of 13 months in
prison followed by an additional 12 months of supervised release. See USSG
§ 7B1.4(a). The district court1 revoked supervised release, accepted the joint
recommendation, and imposed that sentence, which Stokes then appealed.

       On appeal, counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief arguing that the
revocation sentence is substantively unreasonable. Stokes filed a supplemental pro
se brief raising additional issues. Upon careful review, we conclude that the within-
range sentence for a second supervised release revocation is not substantively
unreasonable, and that the additional issues raised in the pro se supplemental brief are
without merit. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm.
                        ______________________________

      1
       The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

                                          -2-