United States v. Calvin Bernhardt
This text of United States v. Calvin Bernhardt (United States v. Calvin Bernhardt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________
No. 19-1158 ___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Calvin Bernhardt
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________
Appeal from United States District Court for the District of North Dakota - Bismarck ____________
Submitted: September 3, 2019 Filed: September 6, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________
Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________
PER CURIAM.
After this court vacated one conviction and remanded for resentencing, United States v. Bernhardt, 903 F.3d 818 (8th Cir. 2018), the district court1 sentenced Calvin
1 The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. Bernhardt to 480 months in prison. Bernhardt appeals, and his counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he seeks permission to withdraw and identifies as a possible issue the district court’s failure to confirm at the resentencing hearing that counsel and Bernhardt had discussed the revised presentence report. In a pro se supplemental brief, Bernhardt argues that the district court’s omission violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(1)(A).
After carefully reviewing the Rule 32 argument for plain error, we find none. See United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 759 (8th Cir. 2014) (procedural errors not objected to at sentencing are reviewed for plain error; to establish plain error, defendant must show error that is plain and affects substantial rights). In addition, having independently reviewed the resentencing record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Calvin Bernhardt, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-calvin-bernhardt-ca8-2019.