United States v. Roy Crangle

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 25-2818

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Roy William Crangle

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

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

____________

Submitted: April 6, 2026

Filed: April 9, 2026

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Roy Crangle appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 8 months in prison followed by 12 months of supervised release.

1 The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Crangle challenges the district court’s decision to revoke his supervised release and the revocation sentence.

After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion, see United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 914-18 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review); see also United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (district court need not make specific findings on 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; all that is generally required to satisfy appellate court is evidence that court was aware of relevant factors); and the sentence was within the advisory Guidelines range, and below the statutory limit, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (maximum revocation prison term is 2 years if underlying offense is Class C felony); Perkins, 526 F.3d at 1110 (revocation sentence within Guidelines range is accorded presumption of reasonableness on appeal). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________