United States of America v. Anthony Dewayne Brown

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2196
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Anthony Dewayne Brown
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: November 26, 2024
Filed: December 3, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Anthony Brown appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after revoking
his supervised release. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed
1The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

a brief arguing that the sentence is procedurally erroneous and substantively
unreasonable.
After careful review, we conclude that Brown’s procedural challenge related
to an enhancement imposed at his original sentencing amounts to an impermissible
collateral attack on his underlying sentence, which he cannot raise in his supervised-
release proceedings. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 913 (8th Cir. 2009);
United States v. Evans, 87 F.3d 1009, 1010 (8th Cir. 1996). As to his argument that
the district court procedurally erred when summarizing his criminal history, an issue
we review for plain error, we conclude he failed to show that any misstatement
resulted in a less favorable sentence than he would have otherwise received. See
United States v. Tumea, 103 F.4th 1349, 1352 (8th Cir. 2024) (per curiam) (standard
of review).
We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by
imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence. The record reflects that the court
properly considered the relevant statutory sentencing factors and did not overlook a
relevant factor, give significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commit
a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors; and the sentence is within the
statutory limits and the Guidelines range. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a); 3583(b)(2),
(e)(3), (h); United States v. Wilkins, 909 F.3d 915, 917-18 (8th Cir. 2018) (standard
of review); U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --