United States v. Robert Page


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: James B. Loken, Pasco M. Bowman and Steven M. Colloton (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [3911496-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Sanjay Agrawal. [3983714] [12-1614]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-1614 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Robert Page lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: November 15, 2012 Filed: December 12, 2012 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Robert Page pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit credit card fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1029(a)(2). The District Court1 sentenced Page to sixty months in prison, an 1 The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. Appellate Case: 12-1614 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/12/2012 Entry ID: 3983714 upward variance from the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range of twenty-four to thirty months, and ordered the sentence to be served consecutively to an unrelated state prison term. The court also ordered $38,580.23 in restitution, with a co-conspirator jointly and severally liable for the payment. On appeal, Page’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Page’s sentence is unreasonable, that the prison term should have run concurrently with the state sentence, and that the restitution amount should not have included certain losses from conduct that occurred in New York. We conclude that the District Court properly considered the sentencing factors and that the sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Farmer, 647 F.3d 1175, 1178–79 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 130 (2012); United States v. Mangum, 625 F.3d 466, 470 (8th Cir. 2010) (explaining that an upward-variance sentence is reasonable where the court makes an individualized assessment of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, based on the facts presented, and considers the defendant’s proffered information); see also United States v. Becker, 636 F.3d 402, 408 (8th Cir. 2011) (noting that a sentencing court does not abuse its discretion in imposing a consecutive sentence where it has considered the § 3553(a) factors). As to restitution, the plea agreement stated that restitution would include the amount of loss agreed to by the parties, and the parties specifically agreed to $38,580.23 at the sentencing hearing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(3); see also United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995) (“A defendant who explicitly and voluntarily exposes himself to a specific sentence may not challenge that punishment on appeal.”). Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. We therefore affirm the judgment of the District Court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 12-1614 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/12/2012 Entry ID: 3983714

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?