United States of America v. Calvin Starr, also known as Calvin Herman Starr

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1465
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Calvin Starr, also known as Calvin Herman Starr
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: June 10, 2024
Filed: June 18, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Calvin Starr appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release and
sentenced him to 11 months in prison. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has
1The Honorable Ronnie L. White, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

filed a brief challenging the district court’s finding that he violated the terms of his
supervision and the substantive reasonableness of the revocation sentence.
After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not
clearly err in finding that Starr violated his supervised release. See United States v.
Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2009) (reviewing decision to revoke supervised
release for abuse of discretion and underlying finding as to whether violation
occurred for clear error). We also conclude the district court did not abuse its
discretion in sentencing Starr. See id. at 915-17 (reviewing revocation sentence using
same standards applied to initial sentencing; substantive reasonableness reviewed
under abuse-of-discretion standard). There is no indication the district court failed
to consider 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
relevant factors. See United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 922-24 (8th Cir. 2006)
(reciting factors to discern whether revocation sentence is unreasonable). Moreover,
the revocation sentence is within the Guidelines range and below the statutory
maximum. See United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (on
appeal, within-Guidelines-range revocation sentence may be presumed reasonable);
see also 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (maximum revocation prison term is 2 years for Class
C felony).
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --