UNITED STATES v. GODBERSEN (2020)

[Unpublished]

Martin Godbersen appeals the sentence the district court ¹ imposed after revoking his supervised release. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief challenging the reasonableness of Godbersen’s sentence. Godbersen has filed a pro se brief disputing that he violated the conditions of his supervised release.

We first conclude that the district court did not err in revoking Godbersen’s supervised release because, notwithstanding the assertions he makes in his pro se brief, he admitted at the revocation hearing that he violated his supervised release conditions. See United States v. Edwards, 400 F.3d 591, 592 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (“Given [the defendant’s] admission of the violation, we find no clear error in the district court’s findings of fact supporting the revocation and no abuse of discretion in the decision to revoke.”). Further, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-18 (8th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion review); see also United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (revocation sentence within Guidelines range is accorded presumption of substantive reasonableness on appeal). Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

PER CURIAM.