United States v. Mark Hall

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: May 3, 2018
• Docket: 17-3387
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 17-3387 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Mark Steven Hall

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________

Submitted: April 30, 2018 Filed: May 3, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Mark Hall directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed upon him after revoking his supervised release. Hall’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw

1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. and has filed a brief questioning whether the district court appropriately handled the government’s nondisclosure of certain evidence to defense counsel prior to the revocation hearing.

We conclude that the district court’s response was appropriate. Hall knew the nature of the undisclosed evidence, had an opportunity to confer with counsel during a short continuance, and did not request a longer continuance. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(2) (listing the available remedies for a party’s failure to comply with discovery rules); United States v. Tibesar, 894 F.2d 317, 319 (8th Cir. 1990) (reviewing a district court’s decision not to exclude evidence under Rule 16 for an abuse of discretion).

We accordingly affirm the judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________

-2-