United States v. Nyakuoth Mach, No. 23-3711 (8th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Kelly, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal law - Sentencing. Anders case. Upon careful review, the record does not indicate that the district court considered Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines in imposing sentence upon the revocation of defendant's probation; the revocation sentence is thus vacated, and the matter is remanded for resentencing with directions to consider Chapter 7.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 23-3711 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Nyakuoth Duop Mach lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Central ____________ Submitted: March 15, 2024 Filed: April 19, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Nyakuoth Mach appeals following the district court’s revocation of her probation. Her counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the revocation sentence is substantively unreasonable. Upon careful review, we vacate the revocation sentence, and remand the matter for resentencing, as the record does not indicate that the district court considered Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines in imposing the sentence. See United States v. Michael, 909 F.3d 990, 993-94 (8th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (upon revoking probation, court is required to consider Chapter 7 of Sentencing Guidelines in determining appropriate sentence). While we express no opinion as to the reasonableness of imposing a sentence within the Guidelines range calculated at the initial sentencing, on remand, the district court is directed to also consider Chapter 7. See USSG § 7B1.4(a) (revocation imprisonment table). Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied. ______________________________ -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.
