United States of America v. LaQuan Dwayne Carter, also known as Quan, also known as Q-Ball

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-2464
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
LaQuan Dwayne Carter, also known as Quan, also known as Q-Ball
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: March 12, 2026
Filed: March 13, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
LaQuan Carter appeals after the district court1 found that he committed three
violations of the conditions of his supervised release, revoked supervision, and
1The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.

-- 1 of 2 --

sentenced him to 12 months in prison. He argues that the district court erred in
finding he violated his terms of supervision, and the revocation sentence was
substantively unreasonable.
We conclude the district court did not clearly err in finding the government
established the violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(3); United States v. Boyd, 792 F.3d 916, 919 (8th Cir. 2015) (district court
may revoke supervised release if government proves by a preponderance of the
evidence that defendant violated condition; decision to revoke supervised release is
reviewed for abuse of discretion, and subsidiary factfinding as to whether violation
occurred is reviewed for clear error); see also United States v. Smith, 576 F.3d 513,
516 (8th Cir. 2009) (assessing witness credibility is a duty for the district court, and
the assessment is “virtually unreviewable on appeal”).
We also conclude the court did not impose a substantively unreasonable
sentence, as the court considered the relevant factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),
and did not err in weighing the factors. See United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921,
922–24 (8th Cir. 2006) (revocation sentence may be unreasonable if district court
fails to consider relevant § 3553(a) factor, gives significant weight to improper or
irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment; upholding upward variance
from revocation Guidelines range to statutory maximum revocation sentence).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --