United States v. David Zouck

Eighth Circuit

United States v. David Zouck

673 F. App'x 600

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 19, 2017

Docket16-1873

StatusUnpublished

This text of 673 F. App'x 600 (United States v. David Zouck) 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.

Bluebook

United States v. David Zouck, 673 F. App'x 600 (8th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

David Zouck appeals his conviction and the sentence imposed by the district court 1 following his guilty plea to conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of a substance containing methamphetamine, and to distributing 5 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1) and (b)(1). We affirm.

First, Zouck argues that his plea was involuntary and unknowing, but he did not move in the district court to withdraw his plea. See United States v. Umanzor, 617 F.3d 1053, 1060-61 (8th Cir. 2010). Second, he argues the district court erroneously calculated his offense level based on inaccurate information in the presentence report (PSR), but the court did not err in relying on PSR recitations to which Zouck did not object. See United States v. Wiggins, 747 F.3d 959, 963 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review); United States v. Munoz, 324 F.3d 987, 991-92 (8th Cir. 2003). Third, he argues the district court erred by failing to give notice of its intent to depart upward, but the sentence imposed *601 was not an upward departure from the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range. Cf. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(h) (notice requirement). Fourth, Zouck is incorrect that his concurrent 132-month prison sentences were beyond the maximum authorized by law. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B); United States v. Bossany, 678 F.3d 603, 606 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review). Fifth, we reject Zouck’s claim that the within-Guidelines-range sentence was unreasonable. See United States v. Black, 670 F.3d 877, 882 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review). Last, we decline to address on direct appeal the claim that counsel provided ineffective assistance. See United States v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003).

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

David Zouck appeals his conviction and the sentence imposed by the district court 1 following his guilty plea to conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of a substance containing methamphetamine, and to distributing 5 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1) and (b)(1). We affirm.

First, Zouck argues that his plea was involuntary and unknowing, but he did not move in the district court to withdraw his plea. See United States v. Umanzor, 617 F.3d 1053, 1060-61 (8th Cir. 2010). Second, he argues the district court erroneously calculated his offense level based on inaccurate information in the presentence report (PSR), but the court did not err in relying on PSR recitations to which Zouck did not object. See United States v. Wiggins, 747 F.3d 959, 963 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review); United States v. Munoz, 324 F.3d 987, 991-92 (8th Cir. 2003). Third, he argues the district court erred by failing to give notice of its intent to depart upward, but the sentence imposed *601 was not an upward departure from the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range. Cf. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(h) (notice requirement). Fourth, Zouck is incorrect that his concurrent 132-month prison sentences were beyond the maximum authorized by law. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B); United States v. Bossany, 678 F.3d 603, 606 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review). Fifth, we reject Zouck’s claim that the within-Guidelines-range sentence was unreasonable. See United States v. Black, 670 F.3d 877, 882 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review). Last, we decline to address on direct appeal the claim that counsel provided ineffective assistance. See United States v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003).

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

673 F. App'x 600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-david-zouck-ca8-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack