United States v. Martin Godbersen

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: April 14, 2020
• Docket: 19-2728
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 19-2728 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Martin Godbersen

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City ____________

Submitted: April 9, 2020 Filed: April 14, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________

Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Martin Godbersen appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after revoking his supervised release. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed

1 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. a brief challenging the reasonableness of Godbersen’s sentence. Godbersen has filed a pro se brief disputing that he violated the conditions of his supervised release.

We first conclude that the district court did not err in revoking Godbersen’s supervised release because, notwithstanding the assertions he makes in his pro se brief, he admitted at the revocation hearing that he violated his supervised release conditions. See United States v. Edwards, 400 F.3d 591, 592 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (“Given [the defendant’s] admission of the violation, we find no clear error in the district court’s findings of fact supporting the revocation and no abuse of discretion in the decision to revoke.”). Further, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-18 (8th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion review); see also United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (revocation sentence within Guidelines range is accorded presumption of substantive reasonableness on appeal). Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________

-2-