United States of America v. Donavan Cross

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-2439
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Donavan Cross
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Western
____________
Submitted: February 4, 2026
Filed: February 9, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Donavan Cross appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release.
His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief arguing that most
1The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 3 --

of the violations were not proven by a preponderance of the evidence, the district
court erred by classifying some violations as Grade A, and the revocation sentence
was substantively unreasonable.
Cross does not challenge the court’s finding that he committed some violations
of his supervised release. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir.
2009) (court need only find one violation to revoke supervised release). As to the
contested violations, we conclude the court did not clearly err in finding they were
proven by a preponderance of the evidence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (authorizing
court to revoke supervised release if it finds by preponderance of evidence defendant
violated condition of release); United States v. Black Bear, 542 F.3d 249, 252 (8th
Cir. 2008) (decision to revoke supervised release is reviewed for abuse of discretion
and subsidiary finding as to whether violation occurred is reviewed for clear error);
United States v. Jones, 628 F.3d 1044, 1047 (8th Cir. 2011) (district court’s decisions
regarding witness credibility are “virtually unreviewable on appeal”).
We conclude we need not reach the merits of the arguments regarding the
Grade of the contested violations, as any procedural error was harmless because the
district court identified the issue, stated that it would have imposed the same sentence
regardless of whether the violations were Grade A or Grade B, and provided an
explanation for the sentence under the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See
United States v. Holmes, 87 F.4th 910, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2023) (Guidelines calculation
error harmless if district court indicated it would have imposed same sentence under
lower Guidelines range, identified contested issue and potentially erroneous ruling,
and provided adequate alternative legal and factual explanation for sentence).
Further, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively
unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors listed in § 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
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

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’s motion to withdraw and affirm.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --