The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a federal district court's decision to impose consecutive supervised release terms on a repeat offender who violated the conditions of his federal supervision by committing new state crimes.
In *United States v. Patrick Newcomer*, decided Jan. 16, 2026, a three-judge panel upheld the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska's revocation of Patrick Newcomer's supervised release and imposition of consecutive 12-month terms for each of his original federal convictions.
Newcomer's legal troubles began on Sept. 12, 2019, when he burglarized a Post Office, stealing packages and envelopes. The crime caused $3,507.62 in losses and impacted 56 victims. Two weeks later, on Sept. 26, 2019, officers executing a search warrant at Newcomer's residence discovered a firearm, which he was prohibited from possessing due to his status as a convicted felon.
Federal prosecutors charged Newcomer with two separate crimes stemming from these incidents. The district court sentenced him to 30 months in prison on each count, with the terms to be served concurrently. Upon his release from prison, the court imposed two concurrent 36-month terms of supervised release, which included a mandatory condition prohibiting him from committing new crimes.
However, Newcomer failed to comply with the terms of his supervised release. In 2024, while still under federal supervision, he was convicted in state court on two additional counts of burglary and one count of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person.
The federal district court responded by revoking Newcomer's supervised release for both of his original federal convictions. As part of the revocation sentence, the court imposed 12 months of supervised release for each conviction, ordering that these new terms run consecutively rather than concurrently.
Newcomer appealed the revocation sentence, arguing that the new supervised release terms should run concurrently rather than consecutively. His challenge focused specifically on the consecutive nature of the supervision terms.
The Eighth Circuit panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Benton, Grasz, and Stras, rejected Newcomer's argument. Writing for the court, Circuit Judge Benton affirmed the district court's revocation sentence in its entirety.
The appeals court exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which grants federal circuit courts authority to hear appeals from final decisions of district courts. The case was submitted to the Eighth Circuit on Nov. 18, 2025, and the court issued its opinion approximately two months later.
The decision represents the latest development in federal supervised release law, particularly regarding how courts may structure supervision terms when defendants violate the conditions of their release by committing new crimes. Federal supervised release serves as a period of court supervision following a defendant's completion of their prison sentence, designed to help facilitate reintegration into society while protecting public safety.
The case highlights the consequences faced by federal defendants who fail to comply with supervised release conditions. When a defendant commits new crimes while on supervised release, federal courts have broad discretion in fashioning appropriate sanctions, including revocation of the existing supervision and imposition of new terms.
Newcomer's case involved violations of supervised release for two separate federal convictions, creating a situation where the district court had to determine how any new supervised release terms would be structured. The court's decision to impose consecutive rather than concurrent terms reflects the seriousness with which federal judges view violations of supervised release conditions, particularly when those violations involve new criminal conduct.
The Eighth Circuit's affirmance of the consecutive sentencing structure suggests that federal appeals courts will generally defer to district courts' exercise of discretion in structuring supervised release terms following revocation proceedings. This deference reflects the principle that district court judges, who are familiar with the specific facts and circumstances of individual cases, are best positioned to craft appropriate sentences.
The case also underscores the ongoing challenges faced by individuals transitioning from federal prison back into their communities. Supervised release is intended to provide structure and support during this transition period, but violations can result in additional periods of court supervision or even return to custody.
For federal practitioners, the decision serves as a reminder that courts have significant flexibility in structuring supervised release terms following revocation proceedings. Defense attorneys representing clients facing supervised release violations should be prepared to address not only the underlying violations but also the appropriate structure for any new supervision terms that may be imposed.
The Eighth Circuit's decision in *Newcomer* adds to the body of federal case law governing supervised release revocation proceedings and provides guidance for how appeals courts will review district court decisions in this area.