United States of America v. Tyler John Minor

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-3412
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Tyler John Minor
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa
____________
Submitted: June 10, 2024
Filed: August 16, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In 2020, Tyler Minor pled guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm as a felon
and was sentenced to 27 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised
release. After his release from imprisonment in 2022, he violated multiple
conditions of his supervised release by failing to participate in substance abuse
testing, using a controlled substance, associating with someone engaged in criminal

-- 1 of 4 --

-2-
activity, failing to report, and failing to comply with Residential Reentry Center
(RRC) rules. Accordingly, a district court revoked his initial term of supervised
release and sentenced him to eight months of imprisonment followed by two years
of supervised release.
Minor’s second term of supervised release began on July 28, 2023. But he
again violated the conditions of the supervised release, this time by failing to comply
with substance abuse treatment and testing and failing to comply with RRC rules.
The probation office recommended revocation and a sentence of at least 12 months
of imprisonment with no term of supervised release to follow. The district court1
revoked the term of supervised release and sentenced Minor to 16 months of
imprisonment.
Minor appeals the most recent revocation of his supervised release, arguing
the district court erred by (1) concluding Minor violated the terms and conditions of
his supervised release and (2) imposing 16 months of imprisonment for the
violations. We affirm the district court.
“We review a district court’s decision to revoke supervised release for an
abuse of discretion and the court’s underlying ‘factual findings as to whether a
violation occurred’ for clear error.” United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 914 (8th
Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Ralph, 480 F.3d 888, 890 (8th Cir. 2007)).
Where a defendant admits to his violations, we have found “no clear error in the
district court’s findings of fact supporting the revocation and no abuse of discretion
in the decision to revoke [a defendant]’s supervised release.” United States v.
Edwards, 400 F.3d 591, 592 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3)).
Here, during his revocation hearing, Minor admitted he failed to attend a
substance abuse evaluation and report for a random urinalysis. Minor also admitted
1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.

-- 2 of 4 --

-3-
he did not comply with RRC rules. Specifically, the district court discussed an
incident where “a small bag” containing a white substance fell out of Minor’s pant
leg during a pat-down search at the RRC. When the officer directed Minor to hand
over the bag, Minor admitted he “did not,” but instead ran into the bathroom and
flushed the bag down the toilet. Because Minor admitted to these violations, the
district court committed no clear error in making its findings of fact, and it did not
abuse its discretion in revoking Minor’s supervised release. See Edwards, 400 F.3d
at 592.
We next review the district court’s decision to impose a revocation sentence
of 16 months. We review the reasonableness of a revocation sentence for abuse of
discretion, which occurs “when a court: (1) fails to consider a relevant factor that
should have received significant weight; (2) gives significant weight to an improper
or irrelevant factor; or (3) considers only the appropriate factors but in weighing
them commits a clear error of judgment.” United States v. Dixon, 52 F.4th 731, 733
(8th Cir. 2022).
Here, the district court carefully considered and discussed the applicable
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, as required by 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(c) and 3583(e). For
example, it considered Minor’s prior supervised release violations, his criminal
history, and his “assaultive, threatening behavior.” It heard about Minor’s history
of “horrendous” behavior at RRCs in the past, including altercations where Minor
was verbally abusive towards RRC staff. Additionally, the district court found
Minor lied not only to his residential officer and his probation officer, but also to the
court during the revocation hearing.2 Hence, the district court did not abuse its
2 During the revocation hearing, Minor maintained the small bag he hid in his
pant leg contained tobacco products. But as the district court noted, it “makes no
sense to run and flush tobacco down the toilet” because he would not get revoked
for bringing tobacco into the RRC. Additionally, an officer observed the bag
contained a “white substance.”

-- 3 of 4 --

-4-
discretion when it found “the appropriate disposition here is above the advisory
guidelines.”
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court.
______________________________

-- 4 of 4 --