United States v. Jeffrey Purdy ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 22-1289
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Jeffrey Colin Purdy
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the District of Minnesota
    ____________
    Submitted: November 2, 2022
    Filed: November 7, 2022
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before ERICKSON, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Jeffrey Purdy received a 60-month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty to
    cyberstalking. See 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 2261
    (b)(5), 2261A(2). He raises a variety of
    challenges to his conviction and sentence. Some center on whether he was the victim
    of a conspiracy between investigators and prosecutors to cover up misconduct.
    Others focus on whether the district court 1 should have been more receptive to his
    motions, including one asking to withdraw his guilty plea. In the end, none have
    merit.
    Of the issues we can consider on appeal, the district court did not abuse its
    discretion in denying Purdy’s numerous motions. See United States v. Andolini, 
    705 F.3d 335
    , 337 (8th Cir. 2013) (per curiam); United States v. Jones, 
    643 F.3d 275
    ,
    277 (8th Cir. 2011). Nor are the challenges to the restitution award or the
    performance of counsel properly before us. See Manrique v. United States, 
    137 S. Ct. 1266
    , 1271 (2017) (holding that “[t]he requirement that a defendant file a
    timely notice of appeal from an amended judgment imposing restitution is at least a
    mandatory claim-processing rule”); United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 
    449 F.3d 824
    , 826–27 (8th Cir. 2006) (explaining that this type of claim is “usually best
    litigated in collateral proceedings”). Having carefully reviewed these arguments and
    others, we accordingly affirm the judgment, dismiss the challenge to the restitution
    award, and deny the motion to strike the government’s brief.
    ______________________________
    1
    The Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, United States District Judge for the
    District of Minnesota.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-1289

Filed Date: 11/7/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/7/2022