United States of America v. Dominic E. McDaniel

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1495
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Dominic E. McDaniel
Defendant - Appellant
___________________________
No. 25-1496
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Dominic E. McDaniel
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________

-- 1 of 4 --

-2-
Submitted: April 13, 2026
Filed: June 15, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
The district court1 revoked Dominic McDaniel’s terms of supervised release
and sentenced him to two consecutive terms of 24 months’ imprisonment. McDaniel
appeals, asserting that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
In 2021, McDaniel was sentenced to 33 months’ imprisonment followed by
three years of supervised release after pleading guilty to possessing a firearm as a
felon. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). In 2022, McDaniel briefly escaped
the federal facility where he was incarcerated. After his capture, he pleaded guilty
to escape from custody, see 18 U.S.C. § 751(a), and was sentenced to 12 months and
one day of imprisonment, followed by another three years of supervised release. In
August 2024, McDaniel began his terms of supervised release. Less than six months
later, the United States Probation Office reported to the district court that McDaniel
had violated several conditions of his release. Among other things, the Probation
Office reported that McDaniel had tested positive for and sold controlled substances,
engaged in domestic violence, and told a jailed acquaintance that he had shot
someone while on release.
On February 25, 2025, the district court held a revocation hearing at which
McDaniel stipulated to violating the terms of his supervised release. The district
court then calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 18-24 months’ imprisonment
for each revoked term of release. The Government requested concurrent 24-month
1 The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.

-- 2 of 4 --

-3-
sentences. After hearing arguments from McDaniel’s counsel and giving McDaniel
an opportunity to speak, the district court imposed two consecutive 24-month
sentences, for a total sentence of 48 months’ imprisonment.
“We review the substantive reasonableness of a [revocation] sentence,”
including the decision to run sentences consecutively, “for abuse of discretion.” See
United States v. Petersen, 848 F.3d 1153, 1157 (8th Cir. 2017); see also United
States v. Valure, 835 F.3d 789, 790 (8th Cir. 2016) (noting the district court’s
“discretionary authority” to order revocation sentences to run consecutively). “A
district court abuses its discretion in sentencing if [it] fails to consider a relevant
factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant weight to an
improper or irrelevant factor, or considers only the appropriate factors but commits
a clear error of judgment in weighing those factors.” Petersen, 848 F.3d at 1157
(citation modified).
McDaniel argues that the district court’s revocation sentence reflects a clear
error of judgment for two reasons. First, he suggests that the court’s imposition of
consecutive 24-month sentences was greater than necessary because a 48-month
sentence is longer than the total imprisonment imposed for his underlying felon-in-
possession and escape convictions. Second, he contends that the district court failed
to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors, such as his acceptance of
responsibility for his violations and his family’s support, while giving outsized
weight to the severity of his violative conduct.
We disagree. For one, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s
consideration of the relevant sentencing factors. The court heard arguments
concerning McDaniel’s acceptance of responsibility and family support and properly
weighed those factors against his “pattern of noncompliant behavior” and evident
dangerousness. See United States v. Isler, 983 F.3d 335, 344 (8th Cir. 2020) (“[A]
district court has wide latitude to assign weight to sentencing factors, and the district
court may give some factors less weight than a defendant prefers or more weight to
the other factors, but that alone does not justify reversal.” (citation modified)).

-- 3 of 4 --

-4-
Likewise, the district court acted within its “discretionary authority” in imposing
consecutive, within-Guidelines sentences. See Valure, 835 F.3d at 790.
Accordingly, we affirm McDaniel’s sentence.
______________________________

-- 4 of 4 --