United States v. Heather Reeker


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: James B. Loken, Michael J. Melloy and Raymond W. Gruender (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4162285-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Stuart J. Dornan and Appellant Ms. Heather Jean Reekers. [4208622] [14-2085]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-2085 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Heather Jean Reekers lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Council Bluffs ____________ Submitted: October 9, 2014 Filed: October 22, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Heather Reekers appeals the 60-month prison sentence imposed after she pleaded guilty to a drug-conspiracy charge in a plea agreement with the government pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. After a change-of-plea hearing, Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer recommended that the plea agreement be accepted by the district court. At the start of the sentencing Appellate Case: 14-2085 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/22/2014 Entry ID: 4208622 hearing, District Judge Robert W. Pratt stated: “the agreed-upon sentence seems to me way too much. What am I missing?” The prosecutor and defense counsel then provided substantial background information that was not part of the Presentence Investigation Report. After considering this information and giving Ms. Reekers an opportunity to comment on counsel’s explanation, the court accepted the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement as being in conformance with the acceptance standards in U.S.S.G. § 6B1.2 and the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and imposed the agreed 60-month sentence. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Reekers’s sentence is substantively unreasonable, and has moved for leave to withdraw. Upon careful review, we conclude that counsel’s argument is without merit. Ms. Reekers agreed to a specific sentence in a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement. Once the district court accepted that agreement, it became binding on both the government and Ms. Reekers, like all plea agreements, and also on the district court. See United States v. Kling, 516 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2008). Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 14-2085 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/22/2014 Entry ID: 4208622

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?