United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 21-1322 ___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Terrell Devon Lillybridge

Defendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern ____________

Submitted: June 21, 2021 Filed: June 28, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________

Before BENTON, WOLLMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Terrell Devon Lillybridge appeals the Guidelines-range sentence the district court1 imposed upon revoking his supervised release. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. Lillybridge’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 916 (8th Cir. 2009) (substantive reasonableness of revocation sentence is reviewed under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (“it will be the unusual case when we reverse a district court sentence – whether within, above, or below the applicable Guidelines range – as substantively unreasonable”). The record reflects that the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors – including the evidence Lillybridge offered in mitigation – and imposed a sentence that was within the Guidelines range and below the statutory limit. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (maximum revocation prison term is 2 years if underlying offense is Class C felony); United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 922-924 (8th Cir. 2006) (revocation sentence may be unreasonable if district court fails to consider relevant § 3553(a) factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment); United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (revocation sentence within Guidelines range is accorded presumption of substantive reasonableness on appeal).

The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________

-2-