United States v. Maurice Cowan
This text of United States v. Maurice Cowan (United States v. Maurice Cowan) 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.
Opinion
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________
No. 25-3399 ___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Maurice La'Von Cowan
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ___________________________
No. 25-3402 ___________________________
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________
Appeals from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern ____________ Submitted: April 14, 2026 Filed: June 1, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________
Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, Maurice Cowan challenges the revocation sentence the district court1 imposed after revoking his supervised release for two separate convictions. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that Cowan’s sentence was not unreasonable, as there is no indication that the district court failed to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, 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. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923-24 (8th Cir. 2006) (sentence may be unreasonable if district court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper factor, or commits clear error of judgment; court may consider criminal history and history on supervised release); United States v. Beckwith, 57 F.4th 630, 632 (8th Cir. 2023) (per curiam) (revocation sentence within Guidelines range is accorded a presumption of substantive reasonableness on appeal).
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm. ______________________________
1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Maurice Cowan, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-maurice-cowan-ca8-2026.