United States of America v. Orin Three Stars

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1807
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Orin Three Stars
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Western
____________
Submitted: July 30, 2025
Filed: August 12, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Orin Three Stars appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised
release and sentenced him to 5 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release.
Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
1 The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the
District of South Dakota.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
Three Stars’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief
challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence and a special condition
of supervised release. Upon careful review, this court concludes that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the revocation sentence. See United
States v. Valure, 835 F.3d 789, 790 (8th Cir. 2016) (substantive reasonableness of
revocation sentence is reviewed under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard).
Additionally, the sentence was within the advisory Guidelines range and below the
statutory limits. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (maximum revocation prison term is 5
years if underlying offense is Class A felony); United States v. Kurkowski, 281 F.3d
699, 703 (8th Cir. 2002) (21 U.S.C. § 841 permits supervised release term up to life);
see also United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (revocation
sentence within Guidelines range is accorded presumption of reasonableness on
appeal). Further, Three Stars failed to preserve his challenge to the special condition
because he agreed to the condition at the revocation hearing. See United States v.
Swehla, 83 F.4th 678, 681-82 (8th Cir. 2023) (by failing to accept court’s invitation
to object to special condition, defendant failed to preserve issue for appeal).
The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --