United States of America v. Alexander B. Evans, also known as Alexander Evans

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-3181
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Alexander B. Evans, also known as Alexander Evans
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
___________________________
No. 25-3182
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Alexander B. Evans, also known as Alexander Evans
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeals from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________

-- 1 of 3 --

Submitted: June 4, 2026
Filed: June 12, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated proceedings, Alexander Evans appeals the sentences the
district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to receipt of child pornography, and his
supervised release for a prior offense was revoked. His counsel has moved for leave
to withdraw and has filed a brief citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
challenging the substantive reasonableness of both sentences.
Upon careful review, we conclude that neither sentence was an abuse of
discretion, see United States v. Valure, 835 F.3d 789, 790 (8th Cir. 2016) (sentence
reviewed for abuse of discretion), as the record reflects that the district court
adequately considered the relevant sentencing factors and did not give significant
weight to an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment in weighing the
relevant factors, see United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923-24 (8th Cir. 2006)
(sentence may be unreasonable if district court fails to consider relevant factor, gives
significant weight to improper factor, or commits clear error of judgment). Regarding
the new sentence, we reject Evans’s challenge to the weight the court assigned to
some factors over others in arriving at a within-Guidelines sentence of 324 months
in prison. See United States v. Maluoth, 121 F.4th 1158, 1165 (8th Cir. 2024)
(simply because court weighed relevant factors more heavily than others does not
mean there was abuse of discretion); see also United States v. Foard, 108 F.4th 729,
1The Honorable Stephen H. Locher, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

738 (8th Cir. 2024) (within-Guidelines term presumptively reasonable). Concerning
the revocation sentence, we discern no error as to the court’s imposition of an above-
Guidelines term of 24 months in prison primarily based on Evans’s history on
supervised release. See United States v. Michels, 49 F.4th 1146, 1148-49 (8th Cir.
2022) (it will be unusual case when appellate court reverses sentence as unreasonable,
whether within, above, or below Guidelines range; no abuse of discretion in imposing
above-Guidelines revocation sentence based on supervision issues).
Following review under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found
no nonfrivolous issues. We thus grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --