United States of America v. Kevin D. Otterson

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-3501
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Kevin D. Otterson
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau
____________
Submitted: May 22, 2026
Filed: May 29, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Kevin Otterson appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release
and sentenced him to a within-Guidelines term of 14 months in prison. His counsel
1The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief asserting a plain error under
Esteras v. United States, 606 U.S. 185, 193-97 (2025) (court may not consider at
revocation the sentencing factor referencing need for sentence to reflect seriousness
of offense, promote respect for law, and provide just punishment for offense), and
challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Upon careful review, we discern no plain Esteras error because the entirety of
the revocation hearing indicates that the sentence was premised on Otterson’s
repeated failure to abide the conditions of supervision, his renewed viewing of
explicit material, and the need to deter future violations of his supervised release. See
United States v. Higgerson, 166 F.4th 702, 706-09 (8th Cir. 2026) (where district
court made initial reference to “all” sentencing factors and indicated that future
revocations would be “incrementally” increased until defendant complied with
conditions, there was no plain Esteras error, as sentencing judge focused on
defendant’s characteristics and need to deter future supervision violations). We
further conclude that the sentence was not an abuse of discretion, see United States
v. Valure, 835 F.3d 789, 790 (8th Cir. 2016) (revocation sentence reviewed for abuse
of discretion), as the record reflects that the district court adequately considered the
relevant sentencing factors and did not give significant weight to an improper factor
or commit a clear error of judgment in imposing a within-Guidelines term, see United
States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923-24 (8th Cir. 2006) (sentence may be
unreasonable if district court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight
to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment; court may
consider history on supervision); United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717 (8th
Cir. 2005) (within-Guidelines-range sentence presumptively reasonable).
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --