United States of America v. Devin Allen Wolfe

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-2862
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Devin Allen Wolfe
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Western
____________
Submitted: April 22, 2026
Filed: May 11, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Devin Allen Wolfe appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised
release for the third time. He challenges the reimposition of three conditions of
1The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District
of South Dakota.

-- 1 of 2 --

supervised release, arguing that they violate his constitutional rights and involve a
greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary.
After carefully considering the record and the parties’ arguments, we conclude
that Wolfe is barred from challenging the reimposed conditions. See, e.g., United
States v. Simpson, 932 F.3d 1154, 1156 (8th Cir. 2019) (holding that defendant’s
“objection to the court reimposing old supervised release conditions amounts to an
improper collateral attack of the underlying sentence”); see also United States v.
Lincoln, 876 F.3d 1137, 1139-40 (8th Cir. 2017) (recognizing that defendant should
not be able to benefit by violating a condition that would have otherwise remained
in effect but for the noncompliance, but then still get to challenge it); cf. United States
v. Kress, 58 F.3d 370, 373 (8th Cir. 1995) (“Where a party could have raised an issue
in a prior appeal but did not, a court later hearing the same case need not consider the
matter.”). In any event, we conclude Wolfe’s challenges fail on the merits. Even
assuming he did not waive or forfeit a challenge to the challenged standard and
special conditions, see United States v. Corn, 47 F.4th 892, 895 (8th Cir. 2022)
(discussing the invited-error doctrine); United States v. Floss, 42 F.4th 854, 864 (8th
Cir. 2022) (applying plain-error review when defendant made a “blanket, generalized
objection” to the constitutionality of a condition), the district court did not err, plainly
or otherwise, by imposing them, see, e.g., United States v. Sterling, 959 F.3d 855,
861-62 (8th Cir. 2020); United States v. Norris, 62 F.4th 441, 452 (8th Cir. 2023);
United States v. Spallek, 934 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2019); United States v. Morais,
670 F.3d 889, 895-97 (8th Cir. 2012).
Accordingly, we grant Wolfe’s motion to supplement the record, and we affirm
the judgment of the district court.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --