United States v. Mark Mink

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Mark Mink

559 F. App'x 605

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJune 6, 2014

Docket13-3279

StatusUnpublished

This text of 559 F. App'x 605 (United States v. Mark Mink) 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. Mark Mink, 559 F. App'x 605 (8th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Mark Howard Mink directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pled guilty to coercing and enticing a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel argues that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. Mink has filed a pro se supplemental submission, in which he claims counsel was ineffective. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

After careful review, this court concludes that Mink’s sentence was not substantively unreasonable, as the 120-month sentence imposed was the statutory minimum sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) (whoever commits offense shall be imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life); United States v. Woods, 717 F.3d 654, 659 (8th Cir.2013) (rejecting argument that sentence was substantively unreasonable, as defendant received statutory minimum sentence); United States v. Watts, 553 F.3d 603, 604 (8th Cir.2009) (per curiam) (district court lacks authority to reduce sentence below statutory minimum). This court declines to consider Mink’s ineffective-assistance claim in this direct criminal appeal. See Woods, 717 F.3d at 657.

The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

1

. The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.

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

PER CURIAM.

Mark Howard Mink directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pled guilty to coercing and enticing a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel argues that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. Mink has filed a pro se supplemental submission, in which he claims counsel was ineffective. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

After careful review, this court concludes that Mink’s sentence was not substantively unreasonable, as the 120-month sentence imposed was the statutory minimum sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) (whoever commits offense shall be imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life); United States v. Woods, 717 F.3d 654, 659 (8th Cir.2013) (rejecting argument that sentence was substantively unreasonable, as defendant received statutory minimum sentence); United States v. Watts, 553 F.3d 603, 604 (8th Cir.2009) (per curiam) (district court lacks authority to reduce sentence below statutory minimum). This court declines to consider Mink’s ineffective-assistance claim in this direct criminal appeal. See Woods, 717 F.3d at 657.

The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

1

. The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

559 F. App'x 605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-mark-mink-ca8-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack