United States v. Mark Hopkin

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Kermit E. Bye, Raymond W. Gruender and Duane Benton (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [3916454-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. George E. Grassby. [3971701] [12-1988]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 12-1988
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Mark Andrew Hopkins
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Rapid City
____________
Submitted: November 6, 2012
Filed: November 6, 2012
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BYE, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Mark Hopkins challenges the 24-month prison term the district court1 imposed
upon revoking his supervised release. On appeal, Hopkins’s counsel has moved to
1

The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota.

Appellate Case: 12-1988

Page: 1

Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Entry ID: 3971701

withdraw, and filed a brief arguing that the sentence imposed is greater than
necessary to meet the statutory goals of sentencing, and that the district court did not
adequately consider or discuss the statutory sentencing factors.
Upon careful review of the entire sentencing record, we conclude that the court
committed no procedural error, adequately explained its reasons for the sentence, and
imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d
919, 922 (8th Cir. 2009) (appeals court reviews district court’s revocation sentencing
decisions using same standards for initial sentencing decisions; court first ensures that
district court committed no significant procedural error, then considers substantive
reasonableness of sentence); United States v. Thunder, 553 F.3d 605, 608 (8th Cir.
2009) (court is not required to mechanically list every 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factor;
evidence that court was aware of relevant factors is sufficient).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 12-1988

Page: 2

Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Entry ID: 3971701