United States v. Calvin Bernhardt, No. 19-1158 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Gruender and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. For the court's prior opinion vacating one count of conviction and remanding for resentencing, see U.S. v. Berhnhardt, 903 F.3d 818 (8th Cir. 2018). Anders case. Defendant's claim of a possible Rule 32 error rejected. [ September 05, 2019
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-1158 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Calvin Bernhardt lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of North Dakota - Bismarck ____________ Submitted: September 3, 2019 Filed: September 6, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. After this court vacated one conviction and remanded for resentencing, United States v. Bernhardt, 903 F.3d 818 (8th Cir. 2018), the district court1 sentenced Calvin 1 The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. Bernhardt to 480 months in prison. Bernhardt appeals, and his counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he seeks permission to withdraw and identifies as a possible issue the district court’s failure to confirm at the resentencing hearing that counsel and Bernhardt had discussed the revised presentence report. In a pro se supplemental brief, Bernhardt argues that the district court’s omission violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(1)(A). After carefully reviewing the Rule 32 argument for plain error, we find none. 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; to establish plain error, defendant must show error that is plain and affects substantial rights). In addition, having independently reviewed the resentencing record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________ -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.
