UNITED STATES v. GUZMAN (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.2021-01-14No. No. 20-1976

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's Guidelines-range revocation sentence, finding it reasonable under an abuse-of-discretion standard. The court granted the motion to withdraw but denied the motion to dismiss the appeal.

Lance Joseph Guzman appealed a sentence imposed by the district court after his supervised release was revoked. Guzman's attorney sought to withdraw from the case and argued that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. The appellate court reviewed the record and found that the district court properly considered the statutory sentencing factors without overlooking any relevant considerations or making a clear error in weighing them.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Reasonableness of supervised release revocation sentence
Whether district court properly considered statutory sentencing factors
Appellate standard of review for revocation sentences

Procedural posture

Guzman appealed the district court's supervised release revocation sentence, and his counsel moved to withdraw while challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

[Unpublished]

Lance Joseph Guzman appeals the Guidelines-range sentence the district court

imposed upon revoking his supervised release. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Guzmans counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and challenges the revocation sentence as substantively unreasonable. Upon careful review of the record and the parties’ response to a show-cause order, this court concludes 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 considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; 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). The sentence is within the Guidelines range, and below the statutory limit. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), (h). The judgment is affirmed. The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied, and the motion to withdraw is granted.

FOOTNOTES

. The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

PER CURIAM.