United States of America v. Michael R. Good

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1918
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Michael R. Good
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: July 6, 2026
Filed: July 21, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Michael R. Good appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised
release and sentenced him to 24 months in prison. Having jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
1 The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
On appeal, Good argues that the district court plainly erred because it never
explicitly determined the grade of his most serious violation or calculated the
applicable revocation Guidelines range. Upon careful review, this court finds no
basis for reversal. See United States v. Brown, 992 F.3d 665, 672 (8th Cir. 2021)
(standard of review for forfeited procedural error is plain error); see also United
States v. Shaw, 104 F.4th 691, 693 (8th Cir. 2024) (failure to calculate Guidelines
range is procedural error). The record shows that the district court found Good’s
violations were Grade C and applied the corresponding Guidelines range. Among
other indicators at the revocation hearing, the court calculated the Guidelines ranges
for each grade, and confirmed that Good was stipulating only to Grade C violations;
and the government joined in Good’s sentencing recommendation based on Grade
C. The government presented no evidence or argument to suggest Good committed
a Grade B violation, and in fact clarified that, if the gun Good was accused of
brandishing was merely a toy—which it acknowledged was all that it could prove—
then the related new-crime violation was likely a misdemeanor offense. The court
stated it was proceeding on the presumption that the gun was a toy. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(3) (court must find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant
violated supervised-release condition); U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1 (offense punishable by
term of imprisonment of one year or less is Grade C violation); United States v.
Krzyzaniak, 702 F.3d 1082, 1085 (8th Cir. 2013) (considering sentencing record,
taken as a whole, when reviewing whether district court procedurally erred).
Even assuming the failure to more clearly announce the Grade-C designation
and corresponding Guidelines range was procedural error, however, this court
concludes that Good has not demonstrated the error was clear or obvious. See United
States v. Winston, 850 F.3d 377, 380 (8th Cir. 2017) (to demonstrate plain error,
defendant must show, inter alia, error that is clear or obvious under current law); see
also United States v. De Aquino, 142 F.4th 628, 633 (8th Cir. 2025) (“In order to
warrant reversal on plain-error review, the legal error must be clear or obvious, rather
than subject to reasonable dispute.”) (cleaned up); United States v. Elbert, 20 F.4th
413, 415 (8th Cir. 2021); United States v. Trung Dang, 907 F.3d 561, 565 (8th Cir.
2018). In any event, the record suggests the court would have imposed the same

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
statutory maximum sentence regardless of the applicable Guidelines range. When it
last ordered modifications to Good’s conditions of supervised release in October
2024, it cautioned him that the modifications would be his “last chance,” and if he
drank alcohol again, he would receive a two-year prison sentence. At the April 2025
revocation hearing, Good stipulated to violating a condition prohibiting him from
consuming alcohol. See United States v. Hamilton, 929 F.3d 943, 948 (8th Cir.
2019) (Guidelines error is harmless where district court indicates it would have
alternatively imposed the same sentence without the error).
The judgment is affirmed.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --