United States of America v. Frank Patrick Lambert

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1749
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Frank Patrick Lambert
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield
____________
Submitted: September 26, 2025
Filed: October 1, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Frank Lambert appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release
and sentenced him to 24 months in prison followed by 10 years of supervised release.
1The Honorable Beth Phillips, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

His counsel has requested leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief arguing that some
of the violations were not proven by a preponderance of the evidence, and that the
revocation sentence was substantively unreasonable. Lambert has also filed a pro se
brief reiterating counsel’s arguments and a motion requesting oral argument.
Lambert does not challenge the court’s finding that he committed two
violations of his supervised release. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 914
(8th Cir. 2009) (“A district court need only find a single violation to revoke a
defendant’s supervised release.”). As to the violations he contests, we conclude the
record supports the district court’s finding that they were proven by a preponderance
of the evidence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (authorizing the court to revoke a
supervised release if it “finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant
violated a condition”); Miller, 557 F.3d at 914 (“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. Jones, 628 F.3d 1044, 1047 (8th Cir. 2011) (noting that district court’s decisions
regarding witness credibility are “virtually unreviewable on appeal”).
We also conclude the court did not impose a substantively unreasonable
sentence, as the court properly considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See Miller, 557 F.3d at 917 (“We
review the substantive reasonableness of a revocation sentence under a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard. A court abuses its discretion if it fails to consider a
relevant factor that should have received significant weight; gives significant weight
to an improper or irrelevant factor; or considers only the appropriate factors but in
weighing those factors commits a clear error of judgment.” (citation modified)).
Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, deny the motion for oral
argument as moot, and affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --