United States v. Frederick Reeve

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Roger L. Wollman, Michael J. Melloy and Bobby E. Shepherd (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [3925792-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Walter Craig Lambert, subject to counsel informing Reeves about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari. [3985960] [12-1787]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-1787 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Frederick Lee Reeves lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: December 11, 2012 Filed: December 18, 2012 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Frederick Reeves appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court imposed after he pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute more than 1 1 The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Appellate Case: 12-1787 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/18/2012 Entry ID: 3985960 500 grams of a mixture and substance containing cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court committed procedural plain error and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. Upon careful review, we find nothing in the record to suggest that the district court committed any procedural error--much less plain error--in this case. See United States v. Molnar, 590 F.3d 912, 914-915 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing for plain error when defendant did not object below; party claiming plain error must prove there was error that was plain and that affected his substantial rights). We further conclude that Reeves’s sentence is not unreasonable. The district court thoroughly explained its chosen sentence, relied on and properly weighed appropriate factors only, and imposed a prison term within the calculated Guidelines range and the statutory limits. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 460-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (procedure for appellate court review of sentences). Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Reeves about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 12-1787 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/18/2012 Entry ID: 3985960

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?