United States v. Brandon Hayes

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: March 4, 2025
• Docket: 24-2835
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 24-2835 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Brandon Lee Hayes

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Western ____________

Submitted: February 26, 2025 Filed: March 4, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________

Before GRUENDER, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Brandon Hayes appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 9 months in prison and 2 years of supervised release. His

1 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief arguing that the district court abused its discretion by revoking Hayes’s supervised release and imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Hayes’s supervised release. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2009) (reviewing decision to revoke supervised release for abuse of discretion); United States v. Kaniss, 150 F.3d 967, 968-69 (8th Cir. 1998). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Hayes, as there is no indication that the court failed to consider a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment. See Miller, 557 F.3d at 917 (discussing abuse-of-discretion review for the substantive reasonableness of a revocation sentence). Moreover, the sentence is within the advisory Guidelines range. See United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (stating that on appeal, a within-Guidelines-range revocation sentence is presumed reasonable).

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm. ______________________________

-2-