United States v. Mark Hopkin


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Kermit E. Bye, Raymond W. Gruender and Duane Benton (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [3916454-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr.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

Download PDF
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Court for the District of South Dakota - Rapid City ____________ Submitted: November 6, 2012 Filed: November 6, 2012 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BYE, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?