The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
21-3754•United States of America v. Adam Randal Shouse
21-3754Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitMar 31, 2022
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 21-3729
___________________________
United States of America,
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,
v.
Adam Randal Shouse,
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
___________________________
No. 21-3731
___________________________
United States of America,
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,
v.
Adam Randal Shouse,
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
____________
Appeals from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
-- 1 of 2 --
Submitted: March 2, 2022
Filed: March 15, 2022
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, Adam Shouse challenges the sentence imposed
by the district court1 after it revoked the supervised release terms that Shouse was
serving for two separate convictions. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has
filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in sentencing Shouse, as there is no indication that the court
overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant
factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors. See
United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review);
United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 922-23 (8th Cir. 2006). The sentence was
within the advisory sentencing guidelines range and below the statutory limit, see 18
U.S.C. § 3583(b)(2), (e)(3); and the district court explained that it had considered the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, see United States v. Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878, 887 (8th
Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm.
______________________________
1The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.