United States of America v. Corey Andrew Barr

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2114
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Corey Andrew Barr
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - St. Joseph
____________
Submitted: October 8, 2024
Filed: October 11, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Corey Barr appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release and
sentenced him to 8 months in prison. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw,
1The Honorable Beth Phillips, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 3 --

and has filed a brief arguing that because Barr’s criminal history category would have
been lowered by Amendment 821 to the Guidelines, his term of supervised release
should have expired prior to the instant violations and his advisory Guidelines range
should have been calculated using a lower criminal history category; and that his
sentence was substantively unreasonable.
As to Barr’s argument that his original criminal history category should have
been reduced based on Amendment 821, Barr did not raise this issue below, and we
conclude that the district court did not plainly err in revoking Barr’s supervised
release or in calculating his advisory Guidelines range. See United States v.
Strubberg, 929 F.3d 969, 978 (8th Cir. 2019) (unobjected-to error is reviewed for
plain error); United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 913 (8th Cir. 2009) (defendant
may not challenge validity of his underlying sentence through collateral attack in
supervised release revocation proceeding). We note that Barr’s contention that a
lower criminal history category at his original sentencing would have led to a shorter
sentence, allowing him to complete supervised release before the instant violations,
is speculative; and that, in any event, any excess prison time would not be credited
to his supervised release term. See United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 59-60
(2000) (length of a supervised release term is not reduced by excess time served in
prison). Further, the court did not plainly err in using Barr’s original criminal history
category in calculating his advisory Guidelines revocation range. See Miller, 557
F.3d at 913.
We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
sentencing Barr, as it properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; there was
no indication that it overlooked a relevant factor, or committed a clear error of
judgment in weighing relevant factors; and the sentence was within the advisory
Guidelines range and below the statutory limit. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (maximum
revocation prison term is 2 years for Class C felony); Miller, 557 F.3d at 915-18
(substantive reasonableness of revocation sentence is reviewed under deferential
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

abuse-of-discretion standard); see also United States v. White Face, 383 F.3d 733,
740 (8th Cir. 2004) (district court need not mechanically list every § 3553(a) factor
when sentencing defendant upon revocation; all that is required is consideration of
relevant matters and some reason for court’s decision).
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --