United States v. Mario Manuel
This text of United States v. Mario Manuel (United States v. Mario Manuel) 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. 22-3645 ___________________________
United States of America,
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,
v.
Mario Marqwinn Manuel,
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________
Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Central ____________
Submitted: April 7, 2023 Filed: April 12, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________
Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________
PER CURIAM.
Mario Manuel appeals after the district court1 revoked his probation and sentenced him to 18 months in prison. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and filed
1 The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. a brief arguing that the revocation sentence is substantively unreasonable. In a pro se brief, Manuel argues that counsel was ineffective for advising him to admit to the violation, and that the district court was biased against him.
We conclude that Manuel’s sentence was not unreasonable, as there is no indication that the district court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Shepard, 657 F.3d 682, 685 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 922-23 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Tschebaum, 306 F.3d 540, 543-44 (8th Cir. 2002). Manuel’s contention that counsel provided ineffective assistance is best litigated in a collateral proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2006). His allegation of judicial bias is conclusory and not supported by the record. See Bannister v. Delo, 100 F.3d 610, 614 (8th Cir. 1996).
Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________
-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. Mario Manuel, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-mario-manuel-ca8-2023.