United States v. Gregory Wayne Newell


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Roger L. Wollman, Raymond W. Gruender and Bobby E. Shepherd (UNPUBLISHED); Denying as premature [4137486-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Jason J. Tupman. [4177535] [14-1147]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-1147 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Gregory Wayne Newell lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Sioux Falls ____________ Submitted: July 14, 2014 Filed: July 22, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Gregory Newell directly appeals the above-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to a counterfeiting offense. Counsel has 1 The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. Appellate Case: 14-1147 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/22/2014 Entry ID: 4177535 moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Newell’s sentence is substantively unreasonable and that the court failed to provide an adequate explanation for the sentence. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence, see United States v. Mangum, 625 F.3d 466, 470 (8th Cir. 2010) (upward variance is reasonable where court makes individualized assessment of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors based on facts presented, and considers defendant’s proffered information), and that the district court adequately explained Newell’s sentence, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 462-63 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (to adequately explain chosen sentence, district court must provide substantial insight into reasons for its determination). Further, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm. As for counsel’s motion to withdraw, we conclude that allowing counsel to withdraw at this time would not be consistent with the Eighth Circuit’s 1994 Amendment to Part V of the Plan to Implement the Criminal Justice Act of 1964. We therefore deny counsel’s motion to withdraw as premature, without prejudice to counsel refiling the motion upon fulfilling the duties set forth in the Amendment. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 14-1147 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/22/2014 Entry ID: 4177535

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?