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)
24-2810•United States of America v. Calvin Milo Alvarez
24-2810Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitMar 31, 2026
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-2819
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Calvin Milo Alvarez
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
____________
Submitted: March 11, 2026
Filed: March 16, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Calvin Alvarez appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release
and sentenced him to 14 months in prison and 286 months of supervised release. His
1The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas.
-- 1 of 2 --
counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief arguing that the revocation
sentence is substantively unreasonable.
After careful review of the record, we conclude that Alvarez’s sentence was not
unreasonable, as there is no indication that the district court overlooked a relevant
factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a
clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Miller,
557 F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2009) (reviewing the district court’s decision to revoke
supervised release for abuse of discretion); United States v. Lozoya, 623 F.3d 624,
626 (8th Cir. 2010) (explaining that a revocation sentence may be unreasonable if the
district court fails to consider a relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3353(a) factor, gives significant
weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commits a clear error of judgment in
weighing the factors); United States v. Walker, 513 F.3d 891, 893 (8th Cir. 2008)
(stating that this court will not disturb a sentence imposed within the bounds of 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e) absent an abuse of discretion).
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm.
______________________________
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.