United States v. Kelvin Davis ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •               United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 20-3287
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Kelvin Lamar Davis
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
    ____________
    Submitted: March 30, 2021
    Filed: April 2, 2021
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before GRUENDER, WOLLMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Kelvin Lamar Davis appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed upon
    revoking his supervised release. Counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has
    filed a brief challenging the sentence as unreasonable. We affirm.
    We conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence.
    See United States v. Miller, 
    557 F.3d 910
    , 916 (8th Cir. 2009) (in reviewing
    revocation sentences, appellate court first ensures no significant procedural error
    occurred, then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under deferential
    abuse-of-discretion standard). The record reflects that the district court properly
    considered the 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) factors, and there is no indication that it
    overlooked a relevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing
    relevant factors, see United States v. Larison, 
    432 F.3d 921
    , 923-24 (8th Cir. 2006);
    and the sentence is below the Guidelines range and the statutory limit, see 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 3583
    (e)(3), (h); United States v. Aguayo-Delgado, 
    220 F.3d 926
    , 933 (8th Cir.
    2000) (maximum supervised release sentence for 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (b)(1)(C) violation
    is life); U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a); cf. United States v. Perkins, 
    526 F.3d 1107
    , 1110 (8th
    Cir. 2008) (revocation sentence within Guidelines range is accorded a presumption
    of substantive reasonableness on appeal).
    The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
    ______________________________
    1
    The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the
    Southern District of Iowa.
    -2-