United States v. Randle Snell
This text of United States v. Randle Snell (United States v. Randle Snell) 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. 25-1883 ___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Randle Snell
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________
Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________
Submitted: March 3, 2026 Filed: March 9, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________
Before BENTON, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM.
Randle Snell appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 20 months in prison and 2 years of supervised release. On appeal, Snell argues that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence.
After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Snell, as it considered the facts of the violation conduct and the parties’ arguments, and there was no indication that it committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. 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); see also United States v. Gray, 533 F.3d 942, 943-44 (8th Cir. 2008) (judges are presumed to know law and understand obligation to consider 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; in determining whether court considered relevant factors, this court reviews entire sentencing record, not merely court’s statements at hearing); United States v. White Face, 383 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir. 2004) (district court need not mechanically list every § 3553(a) factor when sentencing defendant upon revocation; all that is required is consideration of relevant matters and some reason for court’s decision).
Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________
1 The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
-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. Randle Snell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-randle-snell-ca8-2026.