United States v. Mark Mink, No. 13-3279 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable; claim of ineffective assistance of counsel would not be considered in this direct appeal.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-3279 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Mark Mink lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith ____________ Submitted: June 6, 2014 Filed: June 6, 2014 [Unpublished[ ____________ Before BYE, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Mark Howard Mink directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pled guilty to coercing and enticing a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1 The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. § 2422(b). On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (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 ineffectiveassistance claim in this direct criminal appeal. See Woods, 717 F.3d at 657. The judgment is affirmed. Counsel s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________ -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.
