United States v. DeMarcus Chappel

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedAugust 27, 2025
Docket25-1631
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. DeMarcus Chappel (United States v. DeMarcus Chappel) 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. DeMarcus Chappel, (8th Cir. 2025).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 25-1631 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

DeMarcus J. Chappel

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________

Submitted: August 22, 2025 Filed: August 27, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________

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

PER CURIAM. DeMarcus Chappel appeals the above-Guidelines sentence the district court1 imposed upon revoking his supervised release. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Chappel’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. This court concludes that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-18 (8th Cir. 2009) (substantive reasonableness of revocation sentence is reviewed under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard). The record reflects that the district court adequately considered the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir. 2006) (revocation sentence may be unreasonable if court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment). Additionally, the revocation sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e)(3) (maximum revocation prison term is 2 years if underlying offense is Class C felony), (b)(2) (statutory maximum supervised release term for Class C offense of conviction is 3 years), (h) (length of new supervised-release term shall not exceed term authorized by statute for offense of conviction, less revocation prison terms).

The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

-2-

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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
United States v. Duane Larison
432 F.3d 921 (Eighth Circuit, 2006)
United States v. Miller
557 F.3d 910 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. DeMarcus Chappel, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-demarcus-chappel-ca8-2025.