Court Description: [Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Benton, and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. Defendant cannot complain about the imposition of a condition of his supervised release when counsel expressly agreed to it; in any event, there was no impermissible conflict between the court's oral pronouncement of the term and the written sentence; the condition, requiring defendant to temporarily reside in a residential reentry center, was reasonably related to his history of violations, job instability, and substance abuse. [ August 01, 2023 ]
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
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Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: July 28, 2023 Filed: August 2, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.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-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
