United States of America v. Cody Newitt

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2101
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Cody Newitt
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Western
____________
Submitted: November 18, 2024
Filed: February 21, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, ARNOLD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Cody Newitt appeals, asserting the 9-month revocation sentence imposed by
the district court1 is substantively unreasonable. Newitt was initially released to
1 The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the
District of South Dakota.

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
supervision on August 2, 2023, following completion of a 36-month term of
imprisonment for being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm.
His term of supervised release was revoked on January 3, 2024, for unlawful
use of marijuana, methamphetamine, and fentanyl. The district court sentenced him
to a term of 3 months’ imprisonment, followed by 24 months’ supervised release.
Eight days after Newitt was released to supervision, his probation officer petitioned
to revoke his supervision. The petition alleged five violations of supervised release
conditions.
At the revocation hearing, Newitt admitted to two Grade C violations—
marijuana use and failure to participate and reside at a residential reentry center.
With his Category IV criminal history, these violations resulted in an advisory
Guidelines range of 6 to 12 months’ imprisonment. While Newitt requested a below-
Guidelines sentence of 3 months, the district court imposed a within-Guidelines
sentence of 9 months’ imprisonment to be followed by a 24-month term of
supervised release. Newitt challenges the reasonableness of his sentence.
We review the district court’s revocation sentence under a deferential abuse
of discretion standard. United States v. Growden, 663 F.3d 982, 984 (8th Cir. 2011)
(per curiam). A court abuses its discretion and imposes a substantively unreasonable
sentence if it: (1) fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received
significant weight; (2) gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor;
or (3) considers the appropriate factors but commits a clear error of judgment in
weighing them. United States v. Ali, 799 F.3d 1008, 1033 (8th Cir. 2015). A within-
Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Dixon, 52 F.4th
731, 734 (8th Cir. 2022).
Newitt contends the district court failed to properly weigh the job offer from
his previous employer and the minor nature of his violations. The record reflects
that Newitt’s counsel raised the employment offer during the sentencing hearing and
that the district court recognized Newitt’s violations were Grade C offenses. We

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
presume that the district court considers matters presented to it at sentencing. United
States v. Grimes, 702 F.3d 460, 471 (8th Cir. 2012). To establish substantive
unreasonableness, Newitt “must show more than the fact that the district court
disagreed with his view of what weight ought to be accorded certain sentencing
factors.” United States v. Townsend, 617 F.3d 991, 995 (8th Cir. 2010) (per curiam).
The record shows that the district court considered Newitt’s mitigating evidence.
His challenge is no more than a disagreement with the district court’s presumptively
reasonable sentence. We find no abuse of discretion, and we affirm.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --