The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
23-3019•United States of America v. Patrill Darnell Ellis
23-3019Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitJan 30, 2026
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-2390
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Patrill Darnell Ellis
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Central
____________
Submitted: December 30, 2025
Filed: January 5, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Patrill Darnell Ellis appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised
release and sentenced him to 12 months in prison and 18 months of supervised
1The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.
-- 1 of 2 --
release. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief arguing
that the district court erred in finding Ellis violated the terms of his supervision, and
that the sentence is substantively unreasonable.
After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not
clearly err in finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Ellis violated the
conditions of his supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); United States v.
Black Bear, 542 F.3d 249, 252 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review). Ellis admitted
to using a controlled substance, and we discern no error in the district court’s findings
that he violated four other conditions of supervision. See United States v. Miller, 557
F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2009). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in sentencing Ellis. See id. at 915-18 (standard of review); United
States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 922-24 (8th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm the judgment
of the district court.
______________________________
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.