United States v. Alexander Evans

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: June 12, 2026
• Docket: 25-3181, 25-3182
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 25-3181 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Alexander B. Evans, also known as Alexander Evans

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ___________________________

No. 25-3182 ___________________________

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeals from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern ____________ Submitted: June 4, 2026 Filed: June 12, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated proceedings, Alexander Evans appeals the sentences the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to receipt of child pornography, and his supervised release for a prior offense was revoked. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of both sentences.

Upon careful review, we conclude that neither sentence was an abuse of discretion, see United States v. Valure, 835 F.3d 789, 790 (8th Cir. 2016) (sentence reviewed for abuse of discretion), as the record reflects that the district court adequately considered the relevant sentencing factors and did not give significant weight to an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors, see United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923-24 (8th Cir. 2006) (sentence may be unreasonable if district court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper factor, or commits clear error of judgment). Regarding the new sentence, we reject Evans’s challenge to the weight the court assigned to some factors over others in arriving at a within-Guidelines sentence of 324 months in prison. See United States v. Maluoth, 121 F.4th 1158, 1165 (8th Cir. 2024) (simply because court weighed relevant factors more heavily than others does not mean there was abuse of discretion); see also United States v. Foard, 108 F.4th 729,

1 The Honorable Stephen H. Locher, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

-2- 738 (8th Cir. 2024) (within-Guidelines term presumptively reasonable). Concerning the revocation sentence, we discern no error as to the court’s imposition of an above- Guidelines term of 24 months in prison primarily based on Evans’s history on supervised release. See United States v. Michels, 49 F.4th 1146, 1148-49 (8th Cir. 2022) (it will be unusual case when appellate court reverses sentence as unreasonable, whether within, above, or below Guidelines range; no abuse of discretion in imposing above-Guidelines revocation sentence based on supervision issues).

Following review under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. We thus grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm. ______________________________

-3-