United States v. Craig Williams, Jr.

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-3206
___________________________
United States of America,
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,
v.
Craig E. Williams, Jr.,
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: December 27, 2022
Filed: January 6, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Craig Williams appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release
for the second time and imposed a term of imprisonment, followed by an additional
1
The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
term of supervised release. Williams’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a
brief challenging the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. Williams raises
additional arguments in a pro se brief.
After reviewing the record under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, see
United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-16, 917 (8th Cir. 2009), we conclude the
district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. The sentence is
within the statutory limits, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(b); 3583(e)(3), (h), (k), and the
term of supervised release is presumptively reasonable because it is within the
applicable advisory range under the sentencing guidelines, see U.S.S.G.
§ 5D1.2(b)(2); United States v. DeMarrias, 895 F.3d 570, 572, 574 (8th Cir. 2018).
The district court sufficiently considered the relevant 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. The court “was entitled to conduct its own
analysis and reach a conclusion of its own, even if it deviated from the parties’
recommendations,” and acted within its broad discretion by imposing the term of
supervised release. United States v. Steele, 899 F.3d 635, 639 (8th Cir. 2018); see
also DeMarrias, 895 F.3d at 572, 574-75. Williams’s other arguments are
contradicted by the record, and any attempt to challenge the reimposed conditions
restricting his device usage fails. See United States v. Walker, 814 F. App’x 180, 182
(8th Cir. 2020) (per curiam).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-