United States v. Douglas E. Morse ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 98-3861
    ___________
    United States of America,                *
    *
    Appellee,                   *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                 * District Court for the
    * District of Minnesota.
    Douglas E. Morse,                        * [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: October 26, 1999
    Filed: October 28, 1999
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    After Douglas Morse pleaded guilty to possession of unauthorized access
    devices, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 1029
    (a)(3), the district court1 sentenced him to 36
    months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release. He began serving his supervised
    release in 1994. In October 1998, the district court concluded Morse had violated his
    supervised release, and revoked it, after Morse served a term of imprisonment based
    upon a Minnesota conviction for criminal sexual conduct. The district court sentenced
    1
    The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of
    Minnesota.
    Morse to 4 months imprisonment and 20 months additional supervised release. Morse
    now appeals.
    After a thorough review of the record, we reject Morse’s argument that the
    district court violated his due process rights and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
    32.1 by refusing to allow him to introduce evidence challenging his state court
    conviction. We also conclude the government’s certified copy of Morse’s state court
    judgment of conviction was sufficient proof that he had committed a state crime during
    his term of supervised release. See United States v. Hofierka, 
    83 F.3d 357
    , 363 (11th
    Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 
    519 U.S. 1071
     (1997); cf. United States v. Valdez, 
    146 F.3d 547
    , 552 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    119 S. Ct. 355
     (1998); United States v. Gentile, 
    610 F.2d 541
    , 542 (8th Cir. 1979).
    Accordingly, we affirm.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-