United States v. Mark Harder
685 F. App'x 492
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Mark Harder pleaded guilty in 2014 to failing to register as a sex offender under 18 U.S.C. § 2250; sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised release.
- After release, the government moved in 2017 to revoke supervised release for associating with a minor without probation approval, lying to his probation officer, and possessing drug paraphernalia.
- Harder admitted the alleged violations at the revocation proceeding; the district court revoked supervised release and imposed 1 year’ reimprisonment plus 3 years’ supervised release.
- Harder appealed; appointed counsel filed an Anders brief seeking to withdraw, asserting the appeal is frivolous; Harder opposed withdrawal.
- The Seventh Circuit reviewed the limited set of issues counsel raised (and Harder’s response) and applied controlling precedent about counsel and Anders-style review in revocation cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel may withdraw under Anders in this revocation appeal | Gov’t: appeal lacks merit; counsel may move to withdraw with court review | Harder: opposes withdrawal and raises claims | Court applied Anders as policy (not constitutionally required) and allowed withdrawal after review |
| Whether revocation could be challenged after Harder’s admission | Gov’t: admission supports revocation by preponderance of evidence | Harder: argued revocation was unfounded | Court: challenge would be frivolous; admission supports revocation under § 3583(e) |
| Whether due process was violated by lack of investigation into Harder’s justifications | Gov’t: judge ensured understanding and process; procedure satisfied Rule 32.1 | Harder: claimed no one investigated his justifications | Court: rejected claim; record (colloquy) shows procedures and explanation satisfied due process |
| Whether the sentence to 1 year was plainly unreasonable | Gov’t: sentence below statutory maximum and considered § 3553(a) factors | Harder: implied sentence excessive | Court: sentence not unreasonable—below statutory max and court considered history, deterrence, public protection |
Key Cases Cited
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. 1973) (no absolute right to counsel in revocation proceedings)
- Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (U.S. 1987) (Anders safeguards are not constitutionally mandated in every postconviction setting)
- United States v. Flagg, 481 F.3d 946 (7th Cir. 2007) (revocation may be affirmed when defendant admits violations)
- United States v. LeBlanc, 175 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 1999) (procedural safeguards and colloquy during revocation satisfy due process)
- United States v. Boultinghouse, 784 F.3d 1163 (7th Cir. 2015) (counsel right in revocation contexts analyzed)
- United States v. Eskridge, 445 F.3d 930 (7th Cir. 2006) (due-process and counsel analyses in supervised-release revocations)
- United States v. Wheeler, 814 F.3d 856 (7th Cir. 2016) (Anders policy applied in nonconstitutional-review contexts)
- United States v. Bey, 748 F.3d 774 (7th Cir. 2014) (scope of appellate review when counsel moves to withdraw)
- United States v. Wagner, 103 F.3d 551 (7th Cir. 1996) (limits on appellate review when counsel seeks withdrawal)