United States v. Ronald Mazza


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Roger L. Wollman, Morris S. Arnold and Lavenski R. Smith (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4311849-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. David Randolph Mercer.; Denying [4316838-2] motion for appointment of new counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Ronald Mazza. [4376027] [15-2452]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-2452 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Ronald Mazza lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield ____________ Submitted: March 4, 2016 Filed: March 10, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Ronald Mazza directly appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence the district court imposed after he pled guilty to sex offenses. His counsel has moved to 1 1 The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. Appellate Case: 15-2452 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2016 Entry ID: 4376027 withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is procedurally and substantively unsound. Mazza has moved for appointment of new counsel on appeal. We have carefully reviewed the district court’s sentencing decision and find no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Moreover, we have independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and conclude there are no nonfrivolous issues. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, the motion for new counsel is denied, and the judgment is affirmed. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 15-2452 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2016 Entry ID: 4376027

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?