United States of America v. Timothy Paul Cota, Jr., also known as TJ, also known as Timothy P. Cota, also known…

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 26-1553
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Timothy Paul Cota, Jr., also known as TJ, also known as Timothy P. Cota, also
known as Tim Cota
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City
____________
Submitted: August 10, 2026
Filed: August 13, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and TRAYNOR, Circuit Judges.
____________

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM.
Timothy Cota, Jr., appeals the above-Guidelines-range sentence the district
court1 imposed after revoking his supervised release for the second time. He argues
that the court plainly erred by relying on facts included in two disputed violation
reports when varying upward. The government contends Cota waived this claim and
the district court committed no plain error in any event.
Upon careful review, we conclude that even assuming Cota did not waive his
objections to the reports, the district court did not plainly err in considering his
relationship with his probation officer or his Arkansas arrest. See United States v.
Dailey, 113 F.4th 850, 855 (8th Cir. 2024) (stating that although this court could treat
defendant’s claim of error as waived where he failed to object to the district court’s
consideration of disputed allegations when given the opportunity, this court would
elect to review the claim for plain error, which is a “formidable” standard of review).
The district court’s reference to Cota’s relationship with his probation officer was not
clearly or obviously erroneous, as the court explicitly relied on the government’s
argument at sentencing, citing a violation report to which Cota had not objected. See
United States v. De Aquino, 142 F.4th 628, 633 (8th Cir. 2025) (noting that plain-
error review requires a showing of a legal error that is clear or obvious).
Further, the district court did not clearly or obviously base Cota’s sentence on
his Arkansas arrest and, in any event, Cota has not shown that there is a reasonable
probability his sentence would have been lighter absent the court’s reference to the
arrest. See id.; United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 550, 552 (8th Cir. 2005) (en
banc) (holding that plain-error review requires a showing that procedural error
affected the defendant’s substantial rights, i.e., that there is a reasonable probability
1The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

that but for the error, the defendant would have received a more favorable sentence).
The court calculated the Guidelines range based only on the stipulated violations, and
its reference to the Arkansas arrest occurred in the context of its discussion of Cota’s
immediate and repeated violations of his supervision. See Dailey, 113 F.4th at 856
(holding that the district court did not plainly err where it calculated the Guidelines
range based only on stipulated violations, and its reference to facts related to disputed
violations, when read in context, was merely a warning against future violations); see
also United States v. Higgerson, 166 F.4th 702, 709 (8th Cir. 2026) (noting this court
has repeatedly upheld upward variances for recidivist violators of supervised release).
Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --