United States v. Charles Webster, III

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: March 31, 2023
• Docket: 22-3329
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 22-3329 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Charles Julius Webster, III

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

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

Submitted: March 17, 2023 Filed: March 31, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

Charles Webster, III appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 21 months in prison and 60 months of supervised

1 The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. release. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the district court’s finding that a Grade B violation occurred and the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Webster committed a Grade B violation of his supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (providing for revocation of supervised release if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a release condition); United States v. Black Bear, 542 F.3d 249, 252 (8th Cir. 2008) (reviewing a decision to revoke supervised release for abuse of discretion and the subsidiary finding as to whether a violation occurred for clear error).

We also conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the amended revocation sentence. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 917-18 (8th Cir. 2009). The revocation sentence is within the Guidelines range and accorded a presumption of substantive reasonableness on appeal. See United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008). Moreover, there is no indication that the district court overlooked a relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 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. White Face, 383 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir. 2004).

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

-2-