United States of America v. Alan W. Berger

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1746
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Alan W. Berger
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
____________
Submitted: January 17, 2025
Filed: January 24, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Alan Berger appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release
and sentenced him to 15 months in prison and 10 years of supervised release. Having
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
1 The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, then United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas, took inactive status on October 1, 2024.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
On appeal, Berger argues that the sentence was substantively unreasonable
and that the court abused its discretion by giving significant weight to an improper
factor and by declining Berger’s request to permit him to possess internet-capable
electronic devices if he paid for monitoring software. Upon careful review, this court
concludes that the sentence was not substantively unreasonable and the district court
did not abuse its discretion in considering the sentencing factors. See United States
v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 914, 916 (8th Cir. 2009) (abuse of discretion review for
revocation and substantive reasonableness of resulting sentence); United States v.
Porter, 974 F.3d 905, 907-08 (8th Cir. 2020) (court may consider factors it deems
relevant, including those under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A), and only abuses its
discretion by giving significant weight to improper factor); United States v.
DeMarrias, 895 F.3d 570, 574-75 (8th Cir. 2018) (even severe sentence not
substantively unreasonable where district court properly weighed factors). The
district court also did not abuse its discretion by declining to modify the conditions
of his supervised release. See United States v. Carlson, 406 F.3d 529, 531 (8th Cir.
2005) (standard of review for imposition of special condition of supervised release);
United States v. Bender, 566 F.3d 748, 751 (8th Cir. 2009) (upholding similar limits
on computers and internet access).
The judgment is affirmed.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --