United States v. Rodney Hunt

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-2178

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Rodney Lee Hunt

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Central

____________

Submitted: February 18, 2022 Filed: March 9, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Rodney Hunt appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 24 months in prison and 6 months of supervised release. On appeal, Hunt argues that the district court relied on a mistake of fact in setting his sentence.

1 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

Upon careful review, we conclude that--while the district court referred to the 3-year supervised release term Hunt was serving as a 5-year term--the record indicates that the revocation sentence was based on the aggravating and mitigating factors the court discussed in depth, rather than the length of Hunt’s prior term of supervised release. See United States v. Moore, 565 F.3d 435, 437 (8th Cir. 2009) (unobjected-to procedural sentencing error is reviewed under plain error standard); United States v. Chauncey, 420 F.3d 864, 878 (8th Cir. 2005) (where the effect of the error on the result in the district court is uncertain, indeterminate, or speculative, the appellant has not met his burden of showing a reasonable probability that the result would have been different but for the error).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________