United States v. Calvin Alvarez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: March 16, 2026
• Docket: 25-2819
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 25-2819 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Calvin Milo Alvarez

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________

Submitted: March 11, 2026 Filed: March 16, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Calvin Alvarez appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 14 months in prison and 286 months of supervised release. His

1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief arguing that the revocation sentence is substantively unreasonable.

After careful review of the record, we conclude that Alvarez’s sentence was not unreasonable, as there is no indication that 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 the relevant factors. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2009) (reviewing the district court’s decision to revoke supervised release for abuse of discretion); United States v. Lozoya, 623 F.3d 624, 626 (8th Cir. 2010) (explaining that a revocation sentence may be unreasonable if the district court fails to consider a relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3353(a) factor, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commits a clear error of judgment in weighing the factors); United States v. Walker, 513 F.3d 891, 893 (8th Cir. 2008) (stating that this court will not disturb a sentence imposed within the bounds of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) absent an abuse of discretion).

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

-2-