United States of America v. Dreshawn Charles Marquis Dudley

22-1638Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit30 juin 2023

Texte intégral

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-1492
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Dreshawn Charles Marquis Dudley
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa
____________
Submitted: June 26, 2023
Filed: June 29, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Dreshawn Dudley appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised
release and sentenced him to 8 months in prison and 12 months of supervised release.
1The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern
District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief arguing the revocation
sentence was substantively unreasonable.
Upon careful review, we conclude Dudley’s sentence was not unreasonable,
as there is no indication 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,
914 (8th Cir. 2009) (reviewing the district court’s decision to revoke supervised
release for abuse of discretion); United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir.
2006) (explaining a revocation sentence may be unreasonable if the district court fails
to consider a relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factor, gives significant weight to an
improper or irrelevant factor, or commits a clear error of judgment); United States v.
White Face, 383 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir. 2004) (stating a district court need not
mechanically list every § 3553(a) factor when sentencing a defendant upon
revocation; all that is required is consideration of relevant matters and some reason
for the sentencing court’s decision).
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --

Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude

Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.