United States v. Gregory Sills, No. 22-2114 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Kelly, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The sentence imposed upon the revocation of defendant's supervised release was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-2114 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. Gregory Richard Sills, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: September 30, 2022 Filed: October 27, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Gregory Sills appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release and imposed a term of imprisonment, followed by an additional term of supervised 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. release. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief challenging the reasonableness of the sentence. After reviewing the record under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, see United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 917 (8th Cir. 2009), we conclude the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. The sentence is within the statutory limits, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), (h); 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) (2016), and is presumptively reasonable because it is within the applicable advisory range under the sentencing guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a); United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009). 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; see also United States v. Richart, 662 F.3d 1037, 1054 (8th Cir. 2011). The court’s reasoned decision to impose “a sentence above [the] probation officer’s recommendation does not render [Sills’s] sentence substantively unreasonable.” United States v. Wrice, 834 Fed. Appx. 301, 302 (8th Cir. 2021) (per curiam). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -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.
