United States v. Bernard Edwards

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: James B. Loken, Diana E. Murphy and Kermit E. Bye (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4335829-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Bernard Edwards. [4375053] [15-3014]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-3014 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Bernard Edwards lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo ____________ Submitted: March 3, 2016 Filed: March 8, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Bernard Edwards directly appeals the district court’s1 judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 11 months in prison. On appeal, counsel 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. Appellate Case: 15-3014 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/08/2016 Entry ID: 4375053 argues that the court imposed an unreasonable sentence, as it failed to give sufficient weight to several mitigating circumstances. After careful review, this court affirms. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-16 (8th Cir. 2009) (this court reviews revocation sentence for abuse of discretion, first reviewing for significant procedural error, and then considering substantive reasonableness). The district court identified the relevant sentencing factors; explained its reasons for the sentence with specific reference to some of those factors, including the nature of the violations and Edwards’s history and characteristics; and did not commit a clear error of judgment. See id. at 917 (outlining substantive-reasonableness test); see also United States v. Hum, 766 F.3d 925, 927-28 (8th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (rejecting argument that district court failed to adequately consider § 3553(a) factors, as court properly considered defendant’s history and noncompliance on supervision, and need to deter and maintain respect for court’s directives). The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 15-3014 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/08/2016 Entry ID: 4375053

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?