United States of America v. Michael Gene Haney, also known as Michael McClure Herman

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-2691
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Michael Gene Haney, also known as Michael McClure Herman
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith
____________
Submitted: January 4, 2023
Filed: January 17, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRASZ, MELLOY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Michael Haney appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release
and imposed a term of imprisonment, with no additional supervised release to follow.
1The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Arkansas.

-- 1 of 2 --

Haney’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief arguing the district court
erred by revoking supervised release and by imposing a substantively unreasonable
sentence.
We conclude that the district court did not err by revoking supervised release
and sufficiently considered the treatment alternative in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), assuming
without deciding that it was required to do so. See United States v. Hole, 774 Fed.
Appx. 1007, 1008-09 (8th Cir. 2019) (per curiam); United States v. Kaniss, 150 F.3d
967, 969 (8th Cir. 1998). We also conclude that Haney’s sentence is not
substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-16, 917
(8th Cir. 2009) (revocation sentence is reviewed under same deferential abuse-of-
discretion standard applicable to initial sentencing decisions). The sentence is within
the statutory limits, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), and is presumptively reasonable
because it is within the applicable advisory range under the sentencing guidelines, see
U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a); United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009).
The district court sufficiently considered the relevant statutory sentencing factors and
did not overlook a relevant factor, give significant weight to an improper or irrelevant
factor, or commit a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e); Miller, 557 F.3d at 917. Haney’s disagreement with how the court
weighed those factors is insufficient to show an abuse of discretion on this record.
See United States v. Wilkins, 909 F.3d 915, 918 (8th Cir. 2018); United States v.
Perez-Plascencia, 559 Fed. Appx. 608, 609 (8th Cir. 2014) (per curiam).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --