United States v. Jeffrey Provancial, No. 11-1639 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal Case - Anders. No indication in the record that district court gave significant weight to any improper factor at sentencing; mischaracterization of employment history was not plain error, and claim of ineffective assistance will not be addressed on direct appeal.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-1639 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Jeffrey W. Provancial, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: November 17, 2011 Filed: November 22, 2011 ___________ Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Under the terms of a written plea agreement, Jeffrey W. Provancial pleaded guilty to sexual abuse, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ยงยง 1153, 2242(2), and 2246(2)(A). The district court1 imposed a sentence of 108 months in prison, at the top of the advisory Guidelines range, and 5 years of supervised release. Mr. Provancial filed a timely pro se notice of appeal, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court improperly relied on the government s 1 The Honorable Roberto Antonio Lange, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. failure to prove a use-of-force enhancement under the Guidelines in determining its sentence; and that the court clearly erred in finding at sentencing that Mr. Provancial had no employment history whatsoever, when he in fact had worked for one summer prior to his arrest at age 18. We reject counsel s arguments. First, we see no indication that the district court gave significant weight to any improper factor at sentencing. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Second, we conclude that the mischaracterization of Mr. Provancial s employment history, to which counsel did not object below, was not plain error. See United States v. Molnar, 590 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2010). We decline to consider Mr. Provancial s ineffectiveassistance claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006). Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and we grant counsel s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Mr. Provancial about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari. ______________________________ -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.