United States v. Derek Kok, No. 17-1836 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Murphy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not err in revoking defendant's supervision, and the sentence imposed was not substantively unreasonable. [ October 26, 2017
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-1836 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Derek Kok, formerly known as Xuong Manh Quach lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________ Submitted: October 18, 2017 Filed: October 27, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Derek Kok appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release and imposed a revocation sentence of 11 months in prison, and 60 months of supervised 1 The Honorable Rebecca Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. release. Kok’s counsel has filed a brief arguing that the district court erroneously viewed revocation as mandatory, and imposed a substantively unreasonable revocation sentence. Counsel also moves for leave to withdraw. As to the first argument, which was not raised before the district court, we conclude that review is for plain error, and that plain error did not occur, particularly in light of the court’s thorough explanation of its revocation decision. See United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 759 (8th Cir. 2014) (procedural errors not objected to at sentencing are reviewed for plain error); see also United States v. Winston, 850 F.3d 377, 380 (8th Cir. 2017) (plain-error standard). We also conclude that the revocation sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Merrival, 521 F.3d 889, 890 (8th Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -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.
