Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. David E. CLARK Defendant - Appellant
[Unpublished]
David Clark directly appeals after the district court 1 revoked his supervised release, and sentenced him to 6 months in prison and 24 months of supervised release. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief challenging the sentence. Clark has filed a pro se brief challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the violations.
After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Clark, as it properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; there was no indication that it overlooked a relevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors, see United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-18 (8th Cir. 2009) (substantive reasonableness of revocation sentence is reviewed under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard); see also United States v. White Face, 383 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir. 2004) (district court need not mechanically list every § 3553(a) factor when sentencing defendant upon revocation; all that is required is consideration of relevant matters and some reason for court’s decision); and the sentence was within the advisory Guidelines range, and below the statutory limit, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).
As to Clark’s pro se argument, we note that he stipulated to the violations through counsel, and he did not contradict that stipulation in allocution. See United States v. Hernandez-Hernandez, 431 F.3d 1212, 1219 (9th Cir. 2005) (criminal defendants are bound by admissions of fact made by their counsel in their presence and with their authority). To the extent Clark attempts to assert ineffective assistance of counsel, we decline to address the claim in this direct appeal. See United States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746, 749 (8th Cir. 2002) (generally, ineffective-assistance claim is not cognizable on direct appeal).
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm.
FOOTNOTES
1. The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
PER CURIAM.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 19-1925
Decided: August 22, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)