United States of America v. Cody Ray Leveke, also known as Cody Meyer, also known as Cody Ray Meyers

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-3518
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Cody Ray Leveke, also known as Cody Meyer, also known as Cody Ray Meyers
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Central
____________
Submitted: March 13, 2026
Filed: March 18, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Cody Leveke appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release and
sentenced him to a within-Guidelines prison term. His counsel has moved to
1The Honorable Stephen H. Locher, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

withdraw and has filed a brief challenging the district court’s determination that he
violated a condition of release concerning his mental health treatment. Leveke has
filed a pro se supplement echoing counsel’s challenge and further asserting that his
social media postings should not have been considered for sentencing purposes.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err
when it found that Leveke violated the treatment condition of his supervised release.
See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2009) (observing that a
district court may revoke a defendant’s supervised release if it finds by a
preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of his release;
reviewing a district court’s decision to revoke supervision for an abuse of discretion
and the court’s underlying factual findings as to whether a violation occurred for clear
error). We further determine that the district court did not abuse its discretion as to
the factors it considered. See United States v. Perry, 2 F.4th 1146, 1149-50 (8th Cir.
2021) (per curiam) (reviewing a revocation sentence for an abuse of discretion;
concluding that a district court abuses its discretion if it fails to consider a relevant
factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant weight to an
improper factor, or commits a clear error of judgment in weighing the appropriate
factors).
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --