United States v. Jonathan Meier

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

United States v. Jonathan Meier

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 24-2886 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Jonathan Edward Meier

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Central ____________

Submitted: June 13, 2025 Filed: June 18, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________

Before SMITH, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Jonathan Meier appeals the district court’s1 judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to a within-Guidelines prison term of 12 months and a

1 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. day, to be followed by one year and 364 days of supervision. Having carefully reviewed Meier’s arguments for reversal, we disagree with his contention that the revocation judgment violated his constitutional right to a jury trial and that 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) is therefore unconstitutional as applied to him. See United States v. Childs, 17 F.4th 790, 791 (8th Cir. 2021) (reviewing de novo legality of revocation sentence, and noting that proceedings under § 3583(e)(3) permit finding of violation by preponderance of evidence by district court). We also conclude that Meier did not identify a due process violation, establish that his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment, establish that the district court failed to give sufficient weight to his completion of a treatment program, or establish that the district court committed plain error by imposing a special condition that Meier spend up to 90 days in a residential reentry center upon his release from custody, an unfulfilled requirement imposed in a prior order modifying the conditions of supervision with Meier’s consent.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed and Meier’s pending motion is denied as moot. ______________________________

-2-

Reference

Status
Unpublished