United States v. Michael Davis

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-1872
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Michael Ray Davis
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
____________
Submitted: July 28, 2023
Filed: August 2, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Michael Ray Davis appeals after the district court 1 revoked his supervised
release. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
1
The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.
The court sentenced him to a prison term, to be followed by a term of
supervised release that includes a condition requiring him to temporarily reside at a
residential reentry center. Davis’s counsel has moved to withdraw and, in a brief,
argues the district court erred by referring generally to the special conditions of
release during the oral pronouncement, instead of specifically sentencing Davis to
the residential reentry condition.
This court concludes Davis cannot now complain about the residential reentry
condition because counsel expressly agreed to it at the revocation hearing before the
district court pronounced its sentence. See United States v. Thompson, 289 F.3d
524, 526 (8th Cir. 2002). Regardless, the district court did not plainly err. See
United States v. Thompson, 888 F.3d 347, 350 (8th Cir. 2018) (standard of review).
Having reviewed the record, this court discerns no impermissible conflict between
the oral pronouncement and the written sentence. See United States v. Mays, 993
F.3d 607, 622 (8th Cir. 2021) (reiterating that there is no conflict if district court’s
written judgment is consistent with its discernible intent).
The record also demonstrates the condition was reasonably related to Davis’s
history of violations, job instability, and substance abuse. See Thompson, 888 F.3d
at 351 (explaining that this court will affirm if basis for special condition can be
discerned from record); see also United States v. Melton, 666 F.3d 513, 518 (8th Cir.
2012) (noting 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(11) and U.S.S.G. § 5B1.3(e)(1) expressly
authorize a special supervised release condition requiring temporary residence at a
residential reentry center, and this court has “regularly upheld” such a condition as
reasonable).
The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
______________________________
-2-