United States v. Justin Seastrom

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJune 6, 2024
Docket23-3500
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Justin Seastrom (United States v. Justin Seastrom) 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. Justin Seastrom, (8th Cir. 2024).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 23-3500 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Justin Seastrom

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________

Submitted: May 30, 2024 Filed: June 6, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Justin Seastrom appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 18 months in prison and 18 months of supervised release.

1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. During the revocation hearing, the district court informed Seastrom that he must comply with the five special conditions of supervised release set forth in the revocation worksheet prepared by the probation office and that the conditions were incorporated by reference into the final judgment. Seastrom did not object or ask the court to specify which conditions applied.

In this court, Seastrom’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief arguing that the special conditions included in the written judgment should be stricken because the district court did not specifically recite each condition during its oral pronouncement of the sentence. After careful review, we discern no plain error in including the special conditions in the judgment. See United States v. Drapeau, 644 F.3d 646, 657 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review); see also, e.g., United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551, 563 (5th Cir. 2020) (sentencing court pronounces supervision conditions when it orally adopts document recommending those conditions). 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. Drapeau
644 F.3d 646 (Eighth Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Rosie Diggles
957 F.3d 551 (Fifth Circuit, 2020)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Justin Seastrom, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-justin-seastrom-ca8-2024.