United States of America v. Greg Alan Wallin

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-2331
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Greg Alan Wallin
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: March 3, 2026
Filed: March 11, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In 2016, Greg Wallin pled guilty to one count of possession of child
pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B) and (b)(2). He was sentenced
to 120 months in prison and twenty years of supervised release. Wallin commenced
his term of supervision in 2024. He was later arrested pursuant to a violation report

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
by his probation officer. Following a final revocation hearing, the district court1
found that Wallin has committed two violations of the special conditions of his
supervision, and sentenced him to nine months in prison and ten years of supervised
release. Wallin appeals. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court
affirms.
For reversal, Wallin challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that he violated
his special conditions related to (1) having unapproved contact with minors, and (2)
possessing, without approval, a device capable of accessing the internet. This court
reviews for clear error whether the government established a violation of a
defendant’s conditions of supervised release by a preponderance of the evidence.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (authorizing court to revoke term of supervised release
if it finds by preponderance of evidence that defendant violated condition of
supervision); United States v. Black Bear, 542 F.3d 249, 252 (8th Cir. 2008)
(decision to revoke supervised release is reviewed for abuse of discretion and
subsidiary finding as to whether violation occurred is reviewed for clear error).
Although Wallin argues that he did not fully understand the parameters of the
condition limiting his contact with minors, the district court determined that Wallin
was not fully credible. It is also undisputed that Wallin did not seek approval from
his probation officer before he attended a community event and interacted with
several minors who were present. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in concluding that Wallin violated that special condition. Whether Wallin
obtained his probation officer’s approval to retain a flip phone capable of accessing
the internet is immaterial, particularly where the record indicates that Wallin retained
at least one such device that was unapproved. See United States v. Jones, 628 F.3d
1044, 1047 (8th Cir. 2011) (noting virtual unreviewability of district court’s
credibility decisions); United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2009)
(court need only find one violation to revoke supervised release).
1 The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
This court also rejects Wallin’s challenge to the substantive reasonableness of
the nine-month prison term imposed by the district court following its recitation of
factors it considered. See United States v. Elbert, 20 F.4th 413, 416 (8th Cir. 2021)
(reviewing reasonableness of revocation sentence under same deferential abuse-of-
discretion standard that applies to initial sentencing proceedings). See also United
States v. Werlein, 664 F.3d 1143, 1146 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (within-
guidelines sentence is accorded presumption of reasonableness on appeal).
The judgment is affirmed.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --