United States v. Martin Arrasmith , 12 F. App'x 424 ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 00-1614
    ___________
    United States of America,                 *
    *
    Appellee,                    * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    v.                                  * Western District of Missouri.
    *
    Martin Dennis Arrasmith,                  *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.                   *
    ___________
    Submitted: April 5, 2001
    Filed: April 9, 2001
    ___________
    Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Martin Dennis Arrasmith challenges the district court’s1 revocation of his
    supervised release. Upon careful review of the record, we conclude the revocation and
    resulting sentence were correct, and we reject each of Arrasmith’s arguments.
    Specifically, we reject Arrasmith’s unsupported arguments that the district court did not
    have jurisdiction over each of his alleged violations, see 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 3231
    , 3237(a);
    and that the probation officer was required to immediately report his violations to the
    1
    The HONORABLE GARY A. FENNER, United States District Judge for the
    Western District of Missouri.
    district court. Further, we conclude the district court’s finding that Arrasmith had
    violated his supervised release conditions was adequate and supported by the record,
    particularly by evidence that Arrasmith had used drugs and failed to comply with drug
    testing. See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (e)(3) and (g)(3); United States v. Stephens, 
    65 F.3d 738
    ,
    741 (8th Cir. 1995) (defendant knowingly and willfully failed to comply with drug-
    treatment condition of supervised release when he failed to attend counseling sessions
    and submit urine specimens). We reject as meritless Arrasmith’s argument regarding
    disclosure of a mental health report. We construe Arrasmith’s remaining arguments as
    ineffective-assistance claims which would be better addressed in a collateral
    proceeding. See United States v. Martin, 
    59 F.3d 767
    , 771 (8th Cir. 1995).
    Accordingly, we affirm. We deny Arrasmith’s pending motion.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-1614

Citation Numbers: 12 F. App'x 424

Judges: Bowman, Beam, Loken

Filed Date: 4/9/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024