United States v. Charles Drust, Jr.

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 25-1901

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Charles Drust, Jr.

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Western

____________

Submitted: March 30, 2026 Filed: April 7, 2026

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Charles Drust appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release and imposed an above-Guidelines-range sentence of 24 months in prison followed by

1 The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.

10 years of supervised release. Drust argues that the court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence by varying upward after committing a clear error of judgment in weighing the sentencing factors.

Upon careful review, we conclude the sentence was not substantively 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, 917–18 (8th Cir. 2009) (reviewing substantive reasonableness of revocation sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard); United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012) (although this court may consider extent of variance in reviewing substantive reasonableness, this court gives due deference to district court’s decision that statutory sentencing factors, on whole, justify extent of variance).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________