UNITED STATES v. NORTON (2020)

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rickey R. NORTON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-2652

Decided: March 24, 2020

Before ERICKSON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. Anita L. Burns, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO (Laine Cardarella, Fed. Public Defender, on the brief), for appellant. D. Michael Green, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO, for appellee.

[Unpublished]

Rickey Norton appeals after the district court ¹ revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to a prison term within the advisory range under Chapter 7 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“Guidelines”) and an additional term of supervised release. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and argues the revocation sentence is substantively unreasonable.

We conclude the revocation sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. McGhee, 869 F.3d 703, 705-06 (8th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (revocation sentences are reviewed for abuse of discretion). The sentence was within the advisory Guidelines range and the statutory requirements. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), (h). Furthermore, the district court referenced the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and explained its reasons for the decision; and there is no indication the district court overlooked a relevant 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. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (discussing substantive reasonableness; permitting, on appeal, presumption of reasonableness for Guidelines-range sentence). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

PER CURIAM.