United States of America v. Charles Julius Webster, III

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-3329
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Charles Julius Webster, III
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Central
____________
Submitted: March 17, 2023
Filed: March 31, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Charles Webster, III appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised
release and sentenced him to 21 months in prison and 60 months of supervised
1The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

release. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the district court’s finding that a Grade
B violation occurred and the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not
clearly err in finding that Webster committed a Grade B violation of his supervised
release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (providing for revocation of supervised release
if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a
release condition); United States v. Black Bear, 542 F.3d 249, 252 (8th Cir. 2008)
(reviewing a decision to revoke supervised release for abuse of discretion and the
subsidiary finding as to whether a violation occurred for clear error).
We also conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the
amended revocation sentence. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 917-18 (8th
Cir. 2009). The revocation sentence is within the Guidelines range and accorded a
presumption of substantive reasonableness on appeal. See United States v. Perkins,
526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008). Moreover, there is no indication that the district
court overlooked a relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factor, gave significant weight to an
improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the
relevant factors. See United States v. White Face, 383 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --