Opinion
21-2488
10-15-2021
United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Angelo L. Hambrick, also known as Deangelo Hambrick Defendant-Appellant
Unpublished
Submitted: October 12, 2021
Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
Before BENTON, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Angelo L. Hambrick appeals the Guidelines-range sentence the district courtimposed upon revoking his supervised release. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
The Honorable John J. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
Hambrick's counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and has moved for leave to withdraw. He challenges the sentence as substantively unreasonable. This court concludes that 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). The record reflects that the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and imposed a sentence that was within the Guidelines range and below the statutory limit. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e)(3) (maximum revocation prison term is 5 years if underlying offense is Class A felony), (h) (length of new supervised-release term shall not exceed term authorized by statute for offense of conviction, less revocation prison terms); 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); cf. United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (revocation sentence within Guidelines range is accorded presumption of substantive reasonableness on appeal).
The judgment is affirmed. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.