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)
22-2498•United States of America v. Charles Dwayne Carter
22-2498Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitMay 31, 2023
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-1058
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Charles Dwayne Carter
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: May 1, 2023
Filed: May 4, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Charles Carter appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release
and sentenced him to 24 months in prison and 1 year of supervised release. His
1The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.
-- 1 of 2 --
counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief arguing that the revocation
sentence is substantively unreasonable.
Upon careful review, we conclude that Carter’s sentence was not unreasonable,
as there is no indication that the district 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) (reviewing the district court’s decision to revoke supervised
release for abuse of discretion); United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir.
2006) (explaining that a revocation sentence may be unreasonable if the district court
fails to consider a relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3353(a) factor, gives significant weight to an
improper or irrelevant factor, or commits a clear error of judgment); United States v.
White Face, 383 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir. 2004) (stating that a district court need not
mechanically list every § 3553(a) factor when sentencing a defendant upon
revocation; all that is required is consideration of relevant matters and some reason
for the court’s decision).
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm.
______________________________
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.