United States of America v. Darnell Michael Norton, also known as Dino

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-3686
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Darnell Michael Norton, also known as Dino
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Western
____________
Submitted: April 30, 2024
Filed: May 3, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, SMITH, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Darnell Norton appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release
and sentenced him to 14 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. His
1The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 3 --

counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief challenging the
revocation sentence. Norton has filed a pro se brief challenging the court’s finding
that he violated the terms of his supervision, and its imposition of the sentence.
As to the argument in counsel’s brief, after careful review of the record, we
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Norton, as
it properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; there was no indication that
it overlooked a relevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing
relevant factors, see United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-18 (8th Cir. 2009)
(substantive reasonableness of revocation sentence is reviewed under deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard); see also United States v. White Face, 383 F.3d 733,
740 (8th Cir. 2004) (district court need not mechanically list every § 3553(a) factor
when sentencing defendant upon revocation; all that is required is consideration of
relevant matters and some reason for court’s decision); and the sentence was within
the advisory Guidelines range, and below the statutory limit, see 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(3) (maximum revocation prison term is 5 years for Class A felony); 21
U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) (maximum supervised release term is life).
As to Norton’s remaining pro se arguments, we conclude the district court did
not err in finding that he had violated the terms of his supervised release. See 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (court may revoke supervised release if it finds by preponderance
of evidence that defendant violated condition of supervised release); United States
v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 913-14 (8th Cir. 2009) (this court reviews decision to revoke
supervised release for abuse of discretion, and underlying factual findings as to
whether a violation occurred for clear error). We also conclude that the district court
did not abuse its discretion by requiring Norton to spend a portion of his supervised
release residing in a reentry center. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(d), 3563(b)(11) (court
may require defendant to reside at a community corrections facility for all or part of
the term of supervised release); U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(e)(1) (residence in a community
treatment center, halfway house, or similar facility may be imposed as a condition of
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

supervised release); United States v. Melton, 666 F.3d 513, 517-18 (8th Cir. 2012)
(“we have regularly upheld the requirement of a term in a residential reentry center
as a reasonable condition of supervised release”).
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --