United States v. James Kopp

Eighth Circuit

United States v. James Kopp

355 F. App'x 981

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedOctober 27, 2009

Docket08-3530

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 355 F. App'x 981 (United States v. James Kopp) 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. James Kopp, 355 F. App'x 981 (8th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

James Kopp appeals the sentence imposed by the district court 1 following revocation of his term of supervised release. Kopp argues that his within-Guidelines sentence of thirty-six months was unreasonable, and that the district court erred in not advising him of his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself at the revocation and sentencing hearing. We have reviewed the record and find that the district court did not abuse its considerable sentencing discretion. Kopp stipulated to serious supervised release violations—committing a severe physical assault, and being present, numerous times, in a bar. The district court considered the appropriate statutory factors from 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not abuse its discretion by sentencing Kopp within the advisory Guideline range.

Further, Kopp cannot establish that the district court violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Kopp concedes that the district *983 court complied with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2)(E) by allowing him to allocute at the revocation hearing, but contends the district court should have warned him that anything he said during allocution, including his colloquy with the court, could be used against him to increase his sentence. We disagree. See United States v. Rapert, 813 F.2d 182, 185 (8th Cir.1987) (holding that a probationer who admits violating his probation is not entitled to be apprised of the Fifth Amendment privilege). And, the record indicates that nothing said during the exchange between Kopp and the district court during allocution went beyond his original stipulation or might incriminate Kopp in future criminal proceedings. See id. (noting that revocation defendant’s responses to the court admitted “nothing more than that to which he had already stipulated”). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

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

PER CURIAM.

James Kopp appeals the sentence imposed by the district court 1 following revocation of his term of supervised release. Kopp argues that his within-Guidelines sentence of thirty-six months was unreasonable, and that the district court erred in not advising him of his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself at the revocation and sentencing hearing. We have reviewed the record and find that the district court did not abuse its considerable sentencing discretion. Kopp stipulated to serious supervised release violations—committing a severe physical assault, and being present, numerous times, in a bar. The district court considered the appropriate statutory factors from 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not abuse its discretion by sentencing Kopp within the advisory Guideline range.

Further, Kopp cannot establish that the district court violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Kopp concedes that the district *983 court complied with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2)(E) by allowing him to allocute at the revocation hearing, but contends the district court should have warned him that anything he said during allocution, including his colloquy with the court, could be used against him to increase his sentence. We disagree. See United States v. Rapert, 813 F.2d 182, 185 (8th Cir.1987) (holding that a probationer who admits violating his probation is not entitled to be apprised of the Fifth Amendment privilege). And, the record indicates that nothing said during the exchange between Kopp and the district court during allocution went beyond his original stipulation or might incriminate Kopp in future criminal proceedings. See id. (noting that revocation defendant’s responses to the court admitted “nothing more than that to which he had already stipulated”). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

355 F. App'x 981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-james-kopp-ca8-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack