United States of America v. Raheam D. McLean

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-3017
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Raheam D. McLean
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau
____________
Submitted: April 10, 2026
Filed: April 15, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Raheam McLean appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release
and sentenced him to a within-Guidelines term of 9 months in prison. His counsel
1The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 3 --

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief challenging the adequacy of the
sentence explanation and asserting an error based on Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S.
319, 335 (2011) (court may not impose or lengthen prison sentence to enable offender
to complete treatment program or otherwise promote rehabilitation).
Upon careful review, we note that McLean did not raise these issues below, and
we therefore review for plain error. See United States v. Pazour, 609 F.3d 950, 952
(8th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (appellate court may correct unpreserved error when
appellant demonstrates, inter alia, error is clear and obvious and error affects
substantial rights). Regarding the sentence explanation, we discern no clear error, see
United States v. Thomas, 135 F.4th 1115, 1118 (8th Cir. 2025) (no plain error as to
revocation sentence where district court was familiar with defendant’s history, had
memorandum detailing policy considerations, examined violations, heard arguments,
and pronounced “not novel” sentence), let alone error impacting McLean’s
substantial rights, see United States v. Chavarria-Ortiz, 828 F.3d 668, 671 (8th Cir.
2016) (appellant raising forfeited objection to sentence explanation confronts
daunting task in convincing appellate court that more detail would have resulted in
lighter sentence). As to the arguments concerning Tapia, we similarly conclude there
was neither obvious error nor anything to show the likelihood of a lesser sentence.
See United States v. Blackmon, 662 F.3d 981, 986-88 (8th Cir. 2011) (no plain Tapia
error, as district court never expressed intention to lengthen sentence for
rehabilitation, and defendant could not show likelihood of lower sentence).
The written judgment’s statement, in part, that McLean was adjudicated guilty
of violating “Mandatory Condition No. 1” regarding the commission of another crime
conflicts with the oral pronouncement at sentencing. Because the record on appeal
makes the district court’s intent clear, we modify the written judgment to omit any
finding of guilt as to “Mandatory Condition No. 1.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2106; see also
United States v. Henderson, 902 F.3d 822, 828-29 (8th Cir. 2018) (where oral
sentence conflicts with written judgment oral sentence controls; remand to district
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

court unnecessary where panel can correct error concerning conditions violated
itself). We affirm the judgment as modified and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --