United States of America v. Charles Drust, Jr.

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1901
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Charles Drust, Jr.
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Western
____________
Submitted: March 30, 2026
Filed: April 7, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Charles Drust appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release
and imposed an above-Guidelines-range sentence of 24 months in prison followed by
1The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District
of South Dakota.

-- 1 of 2 --

10 years of supervised release. Drust argues that the court imposed a substantively
unreasonable sentence by varying upward after committing a clear error of judgment
in weighing the sentencing factors.
Upon careful review, we conclude the sentence was not substantively
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, 917–18 (8th Cir. 2009) (reviewing substantive reasonableness of
revocation sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard); United States v.
David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012) (although this court may consider extent
of variance in reviewing substantive reasonableness, this court gives due deference
to district court’s decision that statutory sentencing factors, on whole, justify extent
of variance).
Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --