Full text
United States v. Adam Shouse
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________
No. 21-3729 ___________________________
United States of America,
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,
v.
Adam Randal Shouse,
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ___________________________
No. 21-3731 ___________________________
United States of America,
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,
v.
Adam Randal Shouse,
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________
Appeals from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern ____________
Submitted: March 2, 2022 Filed: March 15, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________
Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, Adam Shouse challenges the sentence imposed by the district court1 after it revoked the supervised release terms that Shouse was serving for two separate convictions. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Shouse, as there is no indication that the court overlooked a relevant factor, 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. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review); United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 922-23 (8th Cir. 2006). The sentence was within the advisory sentencing guidelines range and below the statutory limit, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(2), (e)(3); and the district court explained that it had considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, see United States v. Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878, 887 (8th Cir. 2011).
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-