United States v. Richard Carl Wyatt

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedOctober 5, 2000
Docket99-3989
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Richard Carl Wyatt (United States v. Richard Carl Wyatt) 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. Richard Carl Wyatt, (8th Cir. 2000).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________

Nos. 99-3989/99-3990/99-3991/99-3992/99-3993 ___________

United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeals from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. Richard Carl Wyatt, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * ___________

Submitted: September 13, 2000 Filed: October 5, 2000 ___________

Before BOWMAN and BEAM, Circuit Judges, and BOGUE,1 District Judge. ___________

PER CURIAM.

Richard Carl Wyatt appeals his sentence pursuant to a guilty plea for crimes relating to bank robberies in Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Missouri. Specifically, Wyatt argues two grounds for reversal: first, that he received ineffective assistance of

1 The Honorable Andrew W. Bogue, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation. counsel, and second, that the District Court2 erred in its application of the sentencing guidelines. Absent extraordinary circumstances, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim cannot be raised on direct appeal. See United States v. Santana, 150 F.3d 860, 863 (8th Cir. 1998). Such claims are more appropriately raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for post-conviction relief. See United States v. Martinez-Cruz, 186 F.3d 1102, 1105 (8th Cir. 1999). We do not find extraordinary circumstances in this case, and therefore decline to address the claim in this proceeding.

Further, we find no clear error in the District Court's application of U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 (obstruction) and § 3E1.1 (acceptance of responsibility). Neither do we find that the District Court abused its discretion in granting the government's motion for an upward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 (adequacy of criminal history category). See United States v. Collins, 104 F.3d 143, 144 (8th Cir. 1997) (summarizing standards of review).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

2 The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Unites States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. -2-

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

Related

United States v. Terry A. Collins
104 F.3d 143 (Eighth Circuit, 1997)
United States v. Flavio Diaz Santana
150 F.3d 860 (Eighth Circuit, 1998)
United States v. Gustavo Martinez-Cruz
186 F.3d 1102 (Eighth Circuit, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Richard Carl Wyatt, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-richard-carl-wyatt-ca8-2000.