United States v. Robert Allen


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: James B. Loken, Kermit E. Bye and Jane Kelly (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4371947-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Ms. Susan M. Hunt. Appellant's pro se motions are denied as moot. [4366751-2], [4378682-2] [4391569] [16-1002]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-1002 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Robert E. Allen, also known as Richard Eugene Allen lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin ____________ Submitted: April 21, 2016 Filed: April 25, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BYE, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Robert Allen directly appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 18 months in prison plus 3 additional years of 1 The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. Appellate Case: 16-1002 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/25/2016 Entry ID: 4391569 supervised release. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief challenging the reasonableness of Allen’s revocation sentence. Allen has submitted multiple pro se filings, suggesting (1) that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, (2) that the court should have recused sua sponte, (3) that he should have been granted a continuance during the revocation hearing, and (4) that the district court’s revocation decision was unfounded. Upon careful review, we conclude that Allen’s revocation sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009). As to Allen’s pro se assertions, we first decline to consider his ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal. See United States v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003). Second, Allen’s claim that the district court should have recused is without merit. Third, we note there was no counseled motion for a continuance. See Abdullah v. United States, 240 F.3d 683, 686 (8th Cir. 2001). Fourth, we conclude that the district court’s revocation decision was not clearly erroneous, as it was supported by testimony at the revocation hearing. See United States v. Black Bear, 542 F.3d 249, 252 (8th Cir. 2008) (clear-error review); see also United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1109 (8th Cir. 2008). The judgment is affirmed, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw. Allen’s pending pro se motions are denied as moot. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 16-1002 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/25/2016 Entry ID: 4391569

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?