United States v. James Moore, No. 18-3453 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Bowman and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. The court would not address defendant's ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal; the district court did not err in determining defendant had violated the provisions of his supervised release. [ March 05, 2019
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-3453 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. James Eric Moore lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: March 1, 2019 Filed: March 6, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. James Moore directly appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment within his advisory 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. Sentencing Guidelines range. Moore’s counsel has filed a brief contesting several of the court’s findings. Moore’s pro se brief echoes those points and additionally claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the revocation hearing. We decline to address Moore’s ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826–27 (8th Cir. 2006) (explaining that ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims generally are not decided on direct appeal, unless the record has been fully developed, the failure to act would amount to a miscarriage of justice, or counsel’s error is readily apparent). We also conclude that none of the district court’s findings are clearly erroneous. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2009) (explaining that, in a revocation proceeding, findings that a violation has been committed are reviewed for clear error). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -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.
