United States of America v. Randall Allen Herbst

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2066
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Randall Allen Herbst
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa
____________
Submitted: September 15, 2025
Filed: December 9, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
After completing a 121-month sentence of imprisonment for attempting to
entice a minor to engage in illicit sexual activities in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2422(b), Randall Herbst began a 10-year term of supervised release. However,
Herbst repeatedly violated the conditions of supervised release, resulting in
revocation and additional imprisonment. In March 2024, with over half of his term

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
of supervised release remaining, Herbst moved for early termination under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(1). The government opposed the motion and after detailing Herbst’s
crime of conviction and history of non-compliance with the conditions of his
supervised release, argued that this history made it “necessary that he remain
supervised by the probation office to ensure the safety of the community as well as
his compliance with his conditions of supervision.” The district court1 summarily
denied Herbst’s motion and his later motion for reconsideration.
Herbst appeals these denials, arguing “there is no further societal, legal, or
factual benefit to his continued placement on Supervised Release” and that the
district court erred by denying his motion.2 After reviewing the record, we conclude
the district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Mosby, 719 F.3d
925, 930 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review). On multiple occasions, Herbst has
violated the conditions of his supervised release. For example, in 2019, Herbst went
to a playground and took unauthorized pictures of a minor on his cell phone, which
violated two separate conditions of his release. Then, in September 2021, the United
States Probation Office found prohibited images on Herbst’s cell phone and learned
Herbst possessed a cell phone without obtaining prior approval. And finally, in
October 2021, when officers attempted to conduct a routine personal home
inspection following a failed Computer Voice Stress Analyzer exam, Herbst
“became emotionally elevated and verbally hostile towards [the] officers” and, in
violation of the conditions of his release, prevented officers from conducting the
home inspection. Considering Herbst’s history of non-compliance with the
conditions of his supervised release, we conclude the district court did not abuse its
1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.
2 Herbst also argues the district court erred by not holding a hearing before
denying his motion to terminate his remaining term of supervised release. But our
precedent does not require such a hearing. See United States v. Norris, 62 F.4th 441,
447 (8th Cir. 2023) (rejecting an argument the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
required a district court to hold a hearing before denying a motion to terminate
supervised release).

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
broad discretion by denying Herbst’s motion to terminate supervised release nearly
five years before his term was set to conclude. See 18 U.S.C. 3583(e)(1) (permitting
a district court to terminate a term of supervised release after one year “if it is
satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant released and
the interest of justice”); Mosby, 719 F.3d at 930–31.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --