UNITED STATES v. WHITSITT (2020)

[Unpublished]

Richard Whitsitt appeals the sentence the district court ¹ imposed upon revoking his supervised release. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), his counsel moved for leave to withdraw and filed a brief arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable.

On review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915–18 (8th Cir. 2009) (appellate court first ensures no significant procedural error occurred, then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard). The court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, provided appropriate reasons for its decision, and imposed a sentence below the statutory maximum. United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 922– 24 (8th Cir. 2006) (revocation sentence may be unreasonable if district court fails to consider relevant § 3553(a) factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (maximum prison term upon revocation is 2 years for Class C felony). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Beth Phillips, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

PER CURIAM.