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for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: November 19, 2025 Filed: November 24, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.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, 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-