United States of America v. Randle Snell

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1883
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Randle Snell
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: March 3, 2026
Filed: March 9, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________

-- 1 of 2 --

PER CURIAM.
Randle Snell appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release and
sentenced him to 20 months in prison and 2 years of supervised release. On appeal,
Snell argues that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence.
After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in sentencing Snell, as it considered the facts of the violation
conduct and the parties’ arguments, and there was no indication that it committed a
clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Miller, 557
F.3d 910, 915-18 (8th Cir. 2009) (substantive reasonableness of revocation sentence
is reviewed under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard); see also United States v.
Gray, 533 F.3d 942, 943-44 (8th Cir. 2008) (judges are presumed to know law and
understand obligation to consider 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; in determining
whether court considered relevant factors, this court reviews entire sentencing record,
not merely court’s statements at hearing); United States v. White Face, 383 F.3d 733,
740 (8th Cir. 2004) (district court need not mechanically list every § 3553(a) factor
when sentencing defendant upon revocation; all that is required is consideration of
relevant matters and some reason for court’s decision).
Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________
1The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --