United States v. Shaquandis Thurmond

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: November 3, 2022
• Docket: 22-2111
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 22-2111 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Shaquandis Thurmond

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

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

Submitted: October 31, 2022 Filed: November 3, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

Shaquandis Thurmond appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 11 months in prison, to be followed by 2 years of

1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. supervised release. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief challenging the reasonableness of the sentence.

After reviewing the record under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard of review, see United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-16 (8th Cir. 2009), we conclude the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. The sentence is below the statutory limits, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(2), (e)(3), (h), and is presumptively reasonable because it falls within the applicable policy statement range in the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual, see U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a); United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009). The court sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors and did not overlook a relevant factor, give significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commit a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); Miller, 557 F.3d at 917; see also United States v. Clayton, 828 F.3d 654, 658 (8th Cir. 2016). Thurmond cannot now complain about his supervised-release sentence because it is what he asked for and received. See United States v. Thompson, 289 F.3d 524, 526 (8th Cir. 2002); see also United States v. Smalley, 846 Fed. Appx. 422, 422 (8th Cir. 2021) (per curiam). Regardless, the court’s decision to sentence him above the probation officer’s non-binding recommendation does not make his sentence unreasonable. See United States v. Wrice, 834 Fed. Appx. 301, 302-03 (8th Cir. 2021) (per curiam).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________

-2-