United States v. Justin Seastrom, No. 23-3500 (8th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 23-3500 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Justin Seastrom lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: May 30, 2024 Filed: June 6, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Justin Seastrom appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 18 months in prison and 18 months of supervised release. 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. During the revocation hearing, the district court informed Seastrom that he must comply with the five special conditions of supervised release set forth in the revocation worksheet prepared by the probation office and that the conditions were incorporated by reference into the final judgment. Seastrom did not object or ask the court to specify which conditions applied. In this court, Seastrom’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief arguing that the special conditions included in the written judgment should be stricken because the district court did not specifically recite each condition during its oral pronouncement of the sentence. After careful review, we discern no plain error in including the special conditions in the judgment. See United States v. Drapeau, 644 F.3d 646, 657 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review); see also, e.g., United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551, 563 (5th Cir. 2020) (sentencing court pronounces supervision conditions when it orally adopts document recommending those conditions). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
