United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 25-1994 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Jesse L. Donegan

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________

Submitted: November 19, 2025 Filed: November 24, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Jesse Donegan appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to a prison term within the advisory Guidelines range. On appeal,

1 The Honorable Stephen R. Clark, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. counsel has moved to withdraw, and filed a brief arguing that the district court plainly erred in relying upon a sentencing factor listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A).

We conclude Donegan has not established he is entitled to plain-error relief. See United States v. Jokhoo, 141 F.4th 967, 970 (8th Cir. 2025) (standard of review). The record shows that the district court clarified it was considering only permissible sentencing factors in imposing the revocation sentence, and it was not plainly erroneous for the court to consider the conduct triggering Donegan’s supervised release violations. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); Esteras v. United States, 606 U.S. 185 (2025) (in revocation proceeding, district court may not consider underlying offense of conviction for purposes of retribution; taking “no position” on whether court may, in imposing revocation sentence, consider retribution for failing to abide by conditions of supervised release).

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

-2-