United States v. James Bowman, No. 23-1952 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Colloton, and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Defendant's revocation sentence was not substantively unreasonable and, in any event, it was the sentence he requested; claims of due process violation in the revocation proceedings rejected; defendant cannot use this revocation appeal to challenge a special condition imposed at his initial sentencing. [ October 30, 2023 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 23-1952 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. James E. Bowman, also known as Drake, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: October 25, 2023 Filed: October 31, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. James E. Bowman appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 3 years in prison. Bowman raises several arguments: 1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. that his sentence was unreasonable, that he was denied due process in his revocation hearing due to judicial bias, that the special condition of release at issue was unconstitutional, and that his probation officer used false evidence to secure the arrest warrant preceding revocation. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Bowman. There is no indication that the court gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review); United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374, 379 (8th Cir. 2009); United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir. 2006). The revocation prison sentence was within the statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). In any event, Bowman is precluded from challenging his sentence because he requested a revocation prison sentence of up to three years with no supervised release to follow, and that is what he received. See United States v. Corn, 47 F.4th 892, 895 (8th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 1093 (2023). As to the remaining issues Bowman raises on appeal, we find no basis for reversal. The record lacks any evidence of bias resulting in a due process violation. Bowman is procedurally barred from challenging the validity of the special supervised-release condition for the first time in a revocation proceeding absent any changed circumstances. See United States v. Simpson, 932 F.3d 1154, 1156 (8th Cir. 2019); United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 913 (8th Cir. 2009). The district court revoked Bowman’s supervised release based upon his admission that he violated a condition of release, not the probation officer’s assessment of his dangerousness. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. ______________________________ -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.
