United States v. Matt McDermott, No. 13-2531 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. District court did not abuse its discretion by modifying the terms of defendant's probation.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-2531 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Matt McDermott lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha ____________ Submitted: December 20, 2013 Filed: December 23, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Matt McDermott directly appeals the order of the district court1 modifying the terms of his probation. Upon careful review, we reject McDermott s claim that the 1 The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. district court was biased against him and conclude that his other arguments on appeal lack merit. The district court committed no abuse of discretion. Cf. United States v. Leigh, 276 F.3d 1011, 1012 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (revocation of probation is reviewed for abuse of discretion and requires only enough evidence, within sound judicial discretion, to satisfy district judge that conduct of probationer has not met conditions of probation).2 We thus affirm the order of the district court. We also deny McDermott s pending motion. ______________________________ 2 To the extent McDermott has attempted to assert a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, he first did so in his reply brief, and we decline to consider it. See Jenkins v. Winter, 540 F.3d 742, 751 (8th Cir. 2008) ( Claims not raised in an opening brief are deemed waived. . . . This court does not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal in a reply brief. ). -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
