United States v. Demetrius Ingram

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: February 7, 2025
• Docket: 24-3038
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 24-3038 ___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Demetrius Ingram

Defendant - Appellant ____________

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

Submitted: February 4, 2025 Filed: February 7, 2025 [Unpublished]

Before LOKEN, BENTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Demetrius Ingram appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 8 months in prison and 12 months of supervised release. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

1 The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. Ingram’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief that argues the district court plainly erred by not explaining why it rejected the sentence requested by Ingram, and by not stating specific reasons for the within-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Wood, 587 F.3d 882, 883-84 (8th Cir. 2009) (plain error review). Upon careful review, this court concludes that Ingram has not shown that he would have received a lighter sentence if the district court had engaged in a longer explanation of his sentence. See United States v. Black, 670 F.3d 877, 881 (8th Cir. 2012) (defendant must show plain error that affected substantial rights, and reasonable probability that he would have received lower sentence but for the error); United States v. Guarino, 517 F.3d 1067, 1069 (8th Cir. 2008) (where district court erred by failing to adequately explain reasons for sentence imposed, the error did not affect defendant’s substantial rights, as he failed to show that, but for the error, he would have probably received more favorable sentence).

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

-2-