United States v. Martin Godbersen, No. 19-2728 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Beam and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not err in determining defendant had violated the terms of his supervised release, and it did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence after it revoked defendant's supervised release. [ April 13, 2020 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-2728 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Martin Godbersen lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City ____________ Submitted: April 9, 2020 Filed: April 14, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Martin Godbersen appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after revoking his supervised release. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed 1 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. a brief challenging the reasonableness of Godbersen’s sentence. Godbersen has filed a pro se brief disputing that he violated the conditions of his supervised release. We first conclude that the district court did not err in revoking Godbersen’s supervised release because, notwithstanding the assertions he makes in his pro se brief, he admitted at the revocation hearing that he violated his supervised release conditions. See United States v. Edwards, 400 F.3d 591, 592 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (“Given [the defendant’s] admission of the violation, we find no clear error in the district court’s findings of fact supporting the revocation and no abuse of discretion in the decision to revoke.”). Further, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-18 (8th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion review); see also United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (revocation sentence within Guidelines range is accorded presumption of substantive reasonableness on appeal). Accordingly, we affirm, 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.
