United States of America v. Cory Marvin Baker

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1422
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Cory Marvin Baker
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Central
____________
Submitted: February 10, 2025
Filed: June 2, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Cory Baker received the statutory maximum of 24 months in prison after he
violated several conditions of supervised release, including keeping and using
unauthorized internet-capable electronic devices. On appeal, he argues that the

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
district court1 improperly weighed the statutory factors, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a),
3583(e)(3), which led to a substantively unreasonable sentence.
We conclude otherwise. See United States v. Clark, 998 F.3d 363, 367 (8th
Cir. 2021) (reviewing a revocation sentence for an abuse of discretion). The district
court was concerned about the danger Baker posed to children, see 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(2)(C), particularly given that he had searched for child pornography using
queries like “Shower Boys” and “Asian Boy Shower.” Not to mention that he had
failed to comply with sex-offender-registration requirements and associated with a
felon. Although the court varied upward, it sufficiently considered the relevant
factors and did not commit a clear error of judgment in doing so. See Clark, 998
F.3d at 369–70; see also United States v. Richart, 662 F.3d 1037, 1052, 1054 (8th
Cir. 2011) (explaining that a district court can “var[y] based on factors already taken
into account by the advisory guidelines” and “weigh[] the[m] . . . more heavily than
[a defendant] would prefer” (citation omitted)).
Nor did it “give significant weight to an improper factor.” United States v.
Boykin, 850 F.3d 985, 988–89 (8th Cir. 2017) (per curiam). Along with his other
violations, Baker admitted that he had a strained relationship with his probation
officer. It was reasonable for the court to conclude that having him remain on
supervision would not address the danger he posed. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C)
(listing the “need . . . to protect the public” as a consideration). We accordingly
affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________
1 The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Iowa.

-- 2 of 2 --