United States of America v. Shelton E. Lewis, also known as C, also known as Steve Johnson

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-3209
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Shelton E. Lewis, also known as C, also known as Steve Johnson
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: April 8, 2024
Filed: May 24, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, ARNOLD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
After violating the conditions of supervised release, Shelton Lewis received a
48-month prison sentence. On appeal, he tries to walk back a concession about the
type of violation he committed and challenges the overall reasonableness of the
sentence. Neither argument works, so we affirm.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
First, Lewis’s argument that the district court1 misclassified one of his
violations is unreviewable, even for plain error. See United States v. Campbell, 764
F.3d 874, 878 (8th Cir. 2014). Lewis’s sentencing memorandum took the position
that he committed a Grade B violation. Then at sentencing, he stipulated to every
violation the probation office identified, including the Grade B one. Having invited
the alleged error, it is too late to take a different position now. See United States v.
Corn, 47 F.4th 892, 895 (8th Cir. 2022) (“[A] defendant who invites the district court
to make a particular ruling waives his right to claim on appeal that the ruling was
erroneous.”).
Second, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Clark,
998 F.3d 363, 367 (8th Cir. 2021) (reviewing a revocation sentence for an abuse of
discretion). The record shows that the district court sufficiently considered the
statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e)(3), and did not rely on
an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment. See Clark, 998 F.3d at 369–
70. It described Lewis’s conduct in detail and then emphasized that he was “very
dangerous,” had refused to accept responsibility, and “wo[uld not] quit” committing
violations. All permissible grounds to vary upwards, even if Lewis had hoped the
court would exercise its discretion differently. See United States v. Michels, 49 F.4th
1146, 1149 (8th Cir. 2022). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________
1 The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.

-- 2 of 2 --