Court Opinion

ID: 9482185
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:42:52.489939+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:48:49.342715
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
Patterson appeals his conviction of one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and his seventy-four-month sentence. We affirm.
A grand jury indicted Patterson for conspiring to distribute cocaine from January 1989 to January 1990, and with distributing cocaine on November 1, 1989. Following a three-day trial, a jury convicted Patterson of the conspiracy count, but found him not guilty of distribution. Patterson objected to the offense level set by the presentence report (PSR) and argued he was entitled to *1372a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1.
Following a hearing at which both Patterson and the government presented testimony, the district court1 sustained Patterson’s objections to the offense level in the PSR. The court did not, however, specifically address Patterson’s request for a two-level acceptance of responsibility reduction. The court sentenced Patterson to seventy-four months’ imprisonment, and this appeal followed.
On appeal, Patterson contends that the district court’s failure to make specific findings on his request for an acceptance of responsibility reduction violated 18 U.S.C. § 3558(c), and requires remand. Alternatively, Patterson contends the denial of the reduction was clearly erroneous. Also, for the first time on appeal, Patterson argues that his conviction should be reversed because trial counsel was ineffective for failing to cross-examine the government’s “star witness.”
We agree with Patterson’s argument that a district court should state its reasons for imposing a particular sentence. We reject, however, Patterson’s claim that remand is required when, as here, the record is clearly sufficient to permit a meaningful review by an appellate court. See, e.g., United States v. Dortch, 923 F.2d 629, 633 (8th Cir.1991) (remand for specific findings unnecessary where it is implicit that district court rejected defendant’s acceptance of responsibility argument). See also United States v. Hardeman, 933 F.2d 278, 283 (5th Cir.1991), United States v. Caruth, 930 F.2d 811, 816 (10th Cir.1991), United States v. Bianco, 922 F.2d 910, 914 n. 4 (1st Cir.1991) and United States v. Rigby, 896 F.2d 392, 394 (9th Cir.1990). Moreover, we have reviewed the record and conclude that it clearly supports the district court’s rejection of the acceptance of responsibility reduction. Finally, we will not consider on appeal “an ineffective assistance claim not first presented to the district court and on which a proper record has not been made.” United States v. Duke, 940 F.2d 1113, 1120 (8th Cir.1991). We note, however, that Patterson may raise his ineffective assistance claim in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See United States v. Murdock, 928 F.2d 293, 298 (8th Cir.1991).
Accordingly, we affirm.

. The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.