United States v. Matt McDermott

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: James B. Loken, Pasco M. Bowman and Raymond W. Gruender (UNPUBLISHED); Denying [4092425-2] motion to remove counsel for appellee filed by Appellant Mr. Matt McDermott. [4108161] [13-2531]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 13-2531
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Matt McDermott
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
____________
Submitted: December 20, 2013
Filed: December 23, 2013
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Matt McDermott directly appeals the order of the district court1 modifying the
terms of his probation. Upon careful review, we reject McDermott’s claim that the

1

The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of
Nebraska.

Appellate Case: 13-2531

Page: 1

Date Filed: 12/23/2013 Entry ID: 4108161

district court was biased against him and conclude that his other arguments on appeal
lack merit. The district court committed no abuse of discretion. Cf. United States v.
Leigh, 276 F.3d 1011, 1012 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (revocation of probation is
reviewed for abuse of discretion and requires only enough evidence, within sound
judicial discretion, to satisfy district judge that conduct of probationer has not met
conditions of probation).2
We thus affirm the order of the district court. We also deny McDermott’s
pending motion.
______________________________

2

To the extent McDermott has attempted to assert a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel, he first did so in his reply brief, and we decline to consider it.
See Jenkins v. Winter, 540 F.3d 742, 751 (8th Cir. 2008) (“Claims not raised in an
opening brief are deemed waived. . . . This court does not consider issues raised for
the first time on appeal in a reply brief.”).
-2-

Appellate Case: 13-2531

Page: 2

Date Filed: 12/23/2013 Entry ID: 4108161