United States v. Anthony Clay

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 25-1253 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Anthony Dwayne Clay, also known as Oak lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern ____________ Submitted: November 17, 2025 Filed: November 20, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM.

Anthony Clay appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief arguing that the district court erred in concluding he committed the charged violations, deciding to revoke Clay’s supervised release, and imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence.

After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Clay committed a Grade A violation of his supervised release or abuse its discretion in revoking his supervised release. See United States v. Black Bear, 542 F.3d 249, 252 (8th Cir. 2008) (reviewing a decision to revoke supervised release for abuse of discretion and the subsidiary finding as to whether a violation occurred for clear error). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a revocation sentence. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 917 (8th Cir. 2009) (discussing abuse-of-discretion review for the substantive reasonableness of a revocation sentence).

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm.

______________________________