United States of America v. Aaron Lamonte Miles

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-3615
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Aaron Lamonte Miles
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: June 9, 2025
Filed: June 12, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.

-- 1 of 3 --

Aaron Miles appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release.
His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief challenging the sufficiency
of the evidence and the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Having reviewed the record, we conclude the district court did not clearly err
by finding that the government proved the contested violations by a preponderance
of the evidence. See United States v. Staten, 990 F.3d 631, 635 (8th Cir. 2021) (per
curiam) (this court reviews factual findings as to whether revocation violations
occurred for clear error, and will not reverse unless we have a definite and firm
conviction that the district court was mistaken). In making those findings, the court
did not plainly err by considering hearsay statements. See United States v. Simms,
757 F.3d 728, 733-34 (8th Cir. 2014) (reviewing challenge to hearsay statements for
plain error when defendant did not object in district court); see also United States v.
Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746, 748 (8th Cir. 2002) (findings on witness credibility are
virtually unreviewable on appeal).
We further conclude that the district court did not err by revoking supervised
release, see Staten, 990 F.3d at 635 (reviewing decision to revoke supervision for an
abuse of discretion), and did not impose an unreasonable sentence. The record
reflects that the court sufficiently 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.
See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a); 3583(e); United States v. Wilkins, 909 F.3d 915, 917 (8th
Cir. 2018) (reviewing substantive reasonableness of revocation sentence for an abuse
of discretion). The sentence is also within both the statutory limits and the advisory
range of the Sentencing Guidelines. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), (k); Wilkins, 909
F.3d at 917.
1The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --