UNITED STATES v. HALL (2018)

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mark Steven HALL Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-3387

Decided: May 03, 2018

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

Melisa K. Zaehringer, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Davenport, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee Mark Steven Hall, Pro Se

[Unpublished]

Mark Hall directly appeals the sentence the district court ¹ imposed upon him after revoking his supervised release. Hall’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief questioning whether the district court appropriately handled the government’s nondisclosure of certain evidence to defense counsel prior to the revocation hearing.

We conclude that the district court’s response was appropriate. Hall knew the nature of the undisclosed evidence, had an opportunity to confer with counsel during a short continuance, and did not request a longer continuance. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(2) (listing the available remedies for a party’s failure to comply with discovery rules); United States v. Tibesar, 894 F.2d 317, 319 (8th Cir. 1990) (reviewing a district court’s decision not to exclude evidence under Rule 16 for an abuse of discretion).

We accordingly affirm the judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

FOOTNOTES

1. The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network