United States v. Mikato Fulks

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: March 15, 2022
• Docket: 21-3273
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 21-3273 ___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Mikato Fulks,

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________

Submitted: March 4, 2022 Filed: March 15, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________

Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Mikato Fulks appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 24 months in prison. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and

1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), suggesting that the district court erred in relying on a certified copy of a state court criminal judgment to find that Fulks violated his conditions of release, and that the revocation sentence was unreasonable.

After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by relying on a certified copy of the judgment for Fulks’s state court controlled-substance conviction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); United States v. Goodon, 742 F.3d 373, 375-76 (8th Cir. 2014). We also conclude that Fulks’s sentence was not substantively unreasonable, as there is no indication that the 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. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review); United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 922-23 (8th Cir. 2006). The sentence was within the advisory sentencing guidelines range and below the statutory limit, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The district court also explained that it had considered the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878, 887 (8th Cir. 2011).

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm. ______________________________

-2-