United States v. Robert Eberhart

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: JAMES B. LOKEN, DIANA E. MURPHY and STEVEN M. COLLOTON (UNPUBLISHED); denying [3796496-2] motion for appointment of counsel filed by Appellant Robert Eberhart.; Granting [3764668-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Brian S. Witherspoon, on the condition counsel informs appellant about the procedures for seeking rehearing from this court and filing a petition for writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court. [3805481] [10-3392]

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________
No. 10-3392
___________
United States of America,

*
*
Appellee,
*
* Appeal from the United States
v.
* District Court for the
* Eastern District of Missouri.
Robert Eberhart, also known as Roger *
Eberhart,
* [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellant.
*
___________
Submitted: July 1, 2011
Filed: July 8, 2011
___________
Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Robert Eberhart pleaded guilty to three counts of distributing more than five
grams of cocaine base in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court1
imposed concurrent sentences of 57 months in prison and three years of supervised
release. Eberhart appeals. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court abused its

1

The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.

Appellate Case: 10-3392

Page: 1

Date Filed: 07/08/2011 Entry ID: 3805481

discretion in not imposing a more lenient sentence. Eberhart moves for appointment
of new counsel.
Eberhart has not rebutted the presumption that his sentence at the bottom of the
advisory guidelines range is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v.
Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); United States v. Valadez, 573
F.3d 553, 556 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). Additionally, having reviewed the record
under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court affirmed. We deny Eberhart’s motion
for new counsel and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, conditioned on counsel
informing Eberhart about the procedures for seeking rehearing from this court and
filing a petition for a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States.
______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 10-3392

Page: 2

Date Filed: 07/08/2011 Entry ID: 3805481