United States v. Charles Allen

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMarch 3, 2026
Docket25-2518
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Charles Allen (United States v. Charles Allen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Charles Allen, (8th Cir. 2026).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 25-2518 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Charles Wayne Allen

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern ____________

Submitted: February 26, 2026 Filed: March 3, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

Charles Allen appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 21 months in prison followed by 5 years of supervised release.

1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief challenging the substantive reasonableness of the revocation sentence.

After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the revocation sentence, 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, 917 (8th Cir. 2009). Moreover, the revocation sentence is within the Guidelines range and is therefore afforded a presumption of substantive reasonableness on appeal. See United States v. Wilkins, 909 F.3d 915, 917-18 (8th Cir. 2018).

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

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Miller
557 F.3d 910 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Maurice Wilkins
909 F.3d 915 (Eighth Circuit, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Charles Allen, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-charles-allen-ca8-2026.