UNITED STATES v. WILEY (2021)

[Unpublished]

Raymond L. Wiley appeals the above-Guidelines sentence the district court ¹ imposed upon revoking his supervised release. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Wiley's counsel has filed a brief challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable. The district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 916 (8th Cir. 2009) (substantive reasonableness of revocation sentence is reviewed under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard); cf. United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (“it will be the unusual case when we reverse a district court sentence--whether within, above, or below the applicable Guidelines range--as substantively unreasonable”). The record reflects that the revocation sentence was within the statutory maximum, and that the court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e)(3) (maximum revocation prison term is 3 years if underlying offense is Class B felony), (h) (length of new supervised-release term shall not exceed term authorized by statute for offense of conviction, less revocation prison terms), (k) (for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422, the maximum term of supervised release is life); United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 922-924 (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).

The judgment is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

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

PER CURIAM.