Court Opinion

ID: 9894044
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-31 16:00:49.719617+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:40.804339
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 23-1952
                        ___________________________

                            United States of America,

                       lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

                                          v.

                    James E. Bowman, also known as Drake,

                      lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
                                       ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
                                 ____________

                           Submitted: October 25, 2023
                             Filed: October 31, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

       James E. Bowman appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised
release and sentenced him to 3 years in prison. Bowman raises several arguments:

      1
       The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
that his sentence was unreasonable, that he was denied due process in his revocation
hearing due to judicial bias, that the special condition of release at issue was
unconstitutional, and that his probation officer used false evidence to secure the arrest
warrant preceding revocation.

       Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in sentencing Bowman. There is no indication that the court gave
significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor or committed a clear error of
judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 914
(8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review); United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374, 379 (8th
Cir. 2009); United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir. 2006). The
revocation prison sentence was within the statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(3). In any event, Bowman is precluded from challenging his sentence
because he requested a revocation prison sentence of up to three years with no
supervised release to follow, and that is what he received. See United States v. Corn,
47 F.4th 892, 895 (8th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 1093 (2023).

      As to the remaining issues Bowman raises on appeal, we find no basis for
reversal. The record lacks any evidence of bias resulting in a due process violation.
Bowman is procedurally barred from challenging the validity of the special
supervised-release condition for the first time in a revocation proceeding absent any
changed circumstances. See United States v. Simpson, 932 F.3d 1154, 1156 (8th Cir.
2019); United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 913 (8th Cir. 2009). The district court
revoked Bowman’s supervised release based upon his admission that he violated a
condition of release, not the probation officer’s assessment of his dangerousness. See
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).

      The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
                     ______________________________

                                          -2-