United States of America v. Raymundo Zelaya

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2828
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Raymundo Zelaya
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: December 10, 2024
Filed: December 13, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Raymundo Zelaya appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised
release and sentenced him to time served and a new supervised-release term of 5
1The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 3 --

years. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief challenging the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
After careful review, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion
in sentencing Zelaya. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2009)
(reviewing substantive reasonableness of sentence for abuse of discretion). There is
no indication the court overlooked a relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factor, gave
significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed clear error of
judgment. See United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 922-24 (8th Cir. 2006)
(reciting factors to discern whether revocation sentence is unreasonable). The
sentence of time served was below the statutory maximum and the Guidelines range.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (maximum revocation prison term is 2 years for Class C
felony); see also United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en
banc) (it will be unusual case when we reverse district court sentence--whether
within, above, or below applicable Guidelines range--as substantively unreasonable).
Moreover, the new term of supervised release was within the statutory limits. See 18
U.S.C. § 3583(h) (length of new supervised-release term shall not exceed term
authorized by statute for offense of conviction, less revocation prison terms); 21
U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) (maximum term of supervised release is life).
The written judgment’s statement, in part, that Zelaya was adjudicated guilty
of violating the mandatory condition that reads, “You must refrain from any unlawful
use of a controlled substance,” conflicts with the district court’s oral pronouncement.
See United States v. Raftis, 427 F.2d 1145, 1146 (8th Cir. 1970) (per curiam) (oral
pronouncement prevails over contrary judgment). As the record on appeal makes the
court’s intent clear, we modify the written judgment in part to reflect that Zelaya was
found in violation of the mandatory condition that reads, “The defendant shall not
commit another federal, state or local crime.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2106; see also United
States v. Jacobs, 508 Fed. Appx. 576, 577-78 (8th Cir. 2013) (unpublished per
curiam) (remand is unnecessary where written judgment contains apparent clerical
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

errors and district court’s intent is clear from record). We affirm the judgment as so
modified and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --