United States of America v. Anthony Wooten

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2940
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Anthony Wooten
Defendant - Appellant
___________________________
No. 24-2941
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Anthony Wooten
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City
____________
Submitted: December 15, 2025
Filed: February 12, 2026
____________

-- 1 of 6 --

-2-
Before GRUENDER, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
ERICKSON, Circuit Judge.
On January 2, 2024, Anthony Wooten pled guilty to being a felon in
possession of a firearm. At the time, he was on supervised release for prior felon in
possession and escape convictions. The district court1 revoked Wooten’s supervised
release and imposed concurrent 24-month revocation sentences in both cases to run
consecutively to Wooten’s new sentence for the 2024 felon in possession conviction.
Wooten appeals, and we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
In 2013, Wooten was sentenced in the Eastern District of Missouri to 46
months’ imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised release for being
a felon in possession of a firearm. While on supervised release, Wooten escaped
from his residential reentry center. He was eventually apprehended, pled guilty to
escape, and was sentenced to a 36-month term of imprisonment to be followed by
two years of supervised release.
When Wooten was released from prison in 2022, his supervision was
transferred to the Western District of Missouri. On May 30, 2023, while still on
supervised release, Wooten was arrested in St. Louis after fleeing a traffic stop.
Police recovered in his vehicle a .40 caliber handgun loaded with 21 rounds of
ammunition and a 50-round drum magazine loaded with 41 rounds of ammunition.
Wooten was charged in the Eastern District of Missouri with being a felon in
possession of a firearm. He pled guilty to the offense and was sentenced to a 120-
month term of imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised release.
1 The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.

-- 2 of 6 --

-3-
Wooten admitted violating the conditions of his supervised release at a
revocation hearing held in the Western District of Missouri. Wooten informed the
court that the sentencing judge in the Eastern District had recommended that any
revocation sentence run concurrently with his new sentence but acknowledged the
recommendation was not binding on the Western District court.
In imposing the revocation sentences, the court emphasized that Wooten’s
actions had put both himself and the community in danger. The court then identified
the need to impose a sentence that “one, respect for the law, which there hasn’t been,
but secondarily, it’s one thing putting yourself [in danger], but it’s another exposing
that to the public.” The court also noted that Wooten’s conviction for felon in
possession of a firearm was “the very same thing” that he was convicted of in 2013.
Based on these considerations, the district court imposed concurrent revocation
sentences of 24 months’ imprisonment to run consecutively to the 120-month
sentence for Wooten’s new felon in possession conviction.
II. DISCUSSION
Wooten contends the revocation sentences are substantively unreasonable for
two reasons: (1) the district court imposed impermissibly punitive sentences that
primarily sanctioned his new criminal offense rather than his failure to abide by the
terms of his supervised release; and (2) the district court based its sentences on the
need “to promote respect for the law,” which, under Esteras v. United States, 606
U.S. 185 (2025), is not a permissible sentencing factor in revocation proceedings.
A. Punitive Nature of Sentence
“We review the reasonableness of a revocation sentence under the same
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard that applies to initial sentencing
proceedings.” United States v. Elbert, 20 F.4th 413, 416 (8th Cir. 2021).

-- 3 of 6 --

-4-
When a district court revokes a defendant’s supervised release and imposes
a revocation sentence, the revocation sentence is part of the penalty for the initial
offense and does not punish the new offense that led to the revocation. United States
v. Watters, 947 F.3d 493, 496 (8th Cir. 2020). “Where the acts of violation are
criminal in their own right, they may be the basis for separate prosecution, which
would raise an issue of double jeopardy if the revocation of supervised release were
also punishment for the same offense.” Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 700
(2000). To avoid double jeopardy, the revocation sentence should sanction only the
defendant’s breach of trust arising from the failure to follow court-ordered
conditions. United States v. Wilson, 939 F.3d 929, 931-32 (8th Cir. 2019).
The district court’s revocation sentences did not impermissibly punish
Wooten’s new criminal conduct. The court explained that its sentences were
informed by Wooten’s ongoing criminal conduct. The court noted that not only did
Wooten escape while on supervision, but he then committed the same offense that
put him in prison in the first instance. The court found Wooten’s inability to abide
by the rules combined with the danger Wooten posed to the public warranted a
sentence longer than that requested by Wooten. These are permissible
considerations for the district court to weigh when imposing a revocation sentence.
See United States v. Starr, 111 F.4th 877, 880 (8th Cir. 2024) (affirming revocation
sentenced based on the defendant’s “continued inability to adhere to the terms of her
supervised release, and the danger in which she had placed” others).
The district court also acted within its discretion when it ordered the
revocation sentences to run consecutively to his new felon in possession sentence.
A district court has the discretionary authority to impose consecutive sentences after
revoking supervised release. United States v. Valure, 835 F.3d 789, 790-91 (8th Cir.
2016). In addition, the United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual
expressly authorizes consecutive sentences when a revocation sentence is imposed
for the same criminal conduct leading to an additional sentence of imprisonment.
See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) (“Any term of imprisonment imposed upon the revocation
of probation shall be ordered to be served consecutively to any sentence of

-- 4 of 6 --

-5-
imprisonment that the defendant is serving, whether or not the sentence of
imprisonment being served resulted from the conduct that is the basis of the
revocation of probation.”). Wooten’s revocation sentences are not substantively
unreasonable.
B. Revocation Sentencing Considerations
Wooten contends it was inappropriate for the district court to consider the
need to promote respect for the law. When determining the length of a revocation
sentence, the district court must consider “the factors set forth in section 3553(a)(1),
(a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7).” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).
But courts are prohibited from considering § 3553(a)(2)(A)—the need “to reflect the
seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just
punishment for the offense.” Esteras, 606 U.S. at 204.
At the revocation hearing, the district court stated, “I’ve got to make sure I
impose a sentence that I believe, one, respect for the law, which there hasn’t been,
but secondarily, it’s one thing putting yourself [in danger], but it’s another exposing
that to the public.” Wooten argues this statement improperly considered a prohibited
sentencing factor in § 3553(a)(2)(A). Because Wooten did not object to the district
court’s statement, we review his claim for plain error. United States v. Benton, 627
F.3d 1051, 1055 (8th Cir. 2010). “Plain error requires an error, that was clear or
obvious, affected substantial rights, and seriously affects the fairness, integrity or
public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Smith, 146 F.4th 615,
618 (8th Cir. 2025) (internal quotations omitted).
This Court recently rejected a similar argument on plain error review in United
States v. Jokhoo, 141 F.4th 967 (8th Cir. 2025). There, the district court imposed a
revocation sentence that “reflect[ed] the seriousness of Jokhoo’s offense, promote[d]
respect for the law, and provide[d] for just punishment for the supervised release
violations.” Id. at 970 (internal quotations omitted). The Court concluded there was
no plain error because Jokhoo admitted that “the ‘primary driver’ of his sentence

-- 5 of 6 --

-6-
was the district court’s belief that he had a ‘problem following the rules.’” Id.
Because this was a separate and permissible basis for the sentence, the Court found
Jokhoo could not carry his burden of showing the court’s statement about retribution
affected his substantial rights. Id.
Similarly, the district court here referenced the need to promote respect for
the law while also identifying permissible revocation sentencing considerations.
The record shows that the court’s foremost concern was Wooten’s ongoing inability
to follow the rules and emphasized how the nature of his supervised release
violations created a danger to the public. The court expressly identified its obligation
to consider the supervised release violations and impose a sentence that, in its
determination, was sufficient but not greater than necessary to meet its obligation
under the statute. After carefully reviewing the record, we find Wooten has not
carried his burden of showing the district court’s single reference to the need to
promote respect for the law affected his substantial rights, given that the district court
repeatedly noted Wooten’s ongoing inability to follow the rules and highlighted the
danger his supervised release violations posed to the public.
District courts should take care to avoid any mention of the prohibited
considerations in § 3553(a)(2)(A) when imposing revocation sentences. Here,
because the district court’s explanation for the sentences shows they were guided by
permissible sentencing factors, the court did not plainly err when it imposed
concurrent 24-month terms of imprisonment.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
______________________________

-- 6 of 6 --