United States of America v. Garrett Hannes

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-3060
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Garrett Hannes
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
____________
Submitted: April 3, 2026
Filed: April 8, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges
____________
PER CURIAM.
Garrett Hannes 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 Brian C. Buescher, United States District Judge for the District
of Nebraska.

-- 1 of 2 --

60 months of supervised release. Proceeding pro se, Hannes challenges the sentence
on several grounds and argues that his counsel was ineffective.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not procedurally
err or abuse its discretion in sentencing Hannes. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d
910, 915S16 (8th Cir. 2009) (explaining that “[w]e review a district court’s revocation
sentencing decisions using the same standards that we apply to initial sentencing
decisions,” first reviewing for significant procedural error and then evaluating the
sentence’s substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard); United
States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461S62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (“[W]e . . . must
give due deference to district court’s decision that [sentencing] factors, on a whole,
justify the extent of the variance.”). Contrary to Hannes’s arguments, the sentence fell
within statutory limits, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2-year maximum revocation
prison term when offense of conviction was Class C felony), (h) (upon revocation,
court may impose new supervised release term if it does not exceed term authorized
by statute for offense of conviction, less revocation prison terms), (k) (maximum
supervised release term is life for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250), and did not involve
a mandatory minimum prison term under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k), see United States v.
Childs, 17 F.4th 790, 792 (8th Cir. 2021) (holding the invalidation of mandatory
minimum revocation prison terms “applies to § 3583(k) cases, not to all cases under
§ 3583”). Finally, we decline to consider his argument regarding ineffective
assistance of counsel on direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449
F.3d 824, 826S27 (8th Cir. 2006) (“Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel,
however, are usually best litigated in collateral proceedings[.]”).
Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --