United States v. Leonard Rondeau


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Lavenski R. Smith, Pasco M. Bowman and Duane Benton (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4418061-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Randall B. Turner. [4471963] [16-2183]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-2183 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Leonard Rondeau lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Pierre ____________ Submitted: November 17, 2016 Filed: November 22, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Leonard G. Rondeau appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pled guilty to engaging in sexual contact with a child. His counsel has moved to 1 The Honorable Roberto A. Lange, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. Appellate Case: 16-2183 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/22/2016 Entry ID: 4471963 withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court dismisses the appeal. Rondeau was sentenced to a term of 180 months in prison with 3 years of supervised release, to run consecutively to sentences that he was already serving in Nebraska state prison for other offenses. He argues that the federal sentence should run concurrently with the state sentences. Rondeau’s appeal waiver should be enforced and prevents consideration of his claim. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (court should enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where it falls within scope of waiver, plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice would result); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) (multiple terms of imprisonment imposed at different times run consecutively unless court orders that terms are to run concurrently); U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c) (court may run state and federal sentences concurrently, partially concurrently, or consecutively in order to achieve reasonable punishment). An independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), reveals no non-frivolous issues for appeal. The appeal is dismissed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 16-2183 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/22/2016 Entry ID: 4471963

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?