United States v. Dwayne Duncan , 77 F. App'x 922 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 03-1368
    ___________
    United States of America,           *
    *
    Appellee,               *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                            * District Court for the Eastern
    * District of Missouri.
    Dwayne Duncan, also known as        *
    Dewayne Steven Duncan, also         * [UNPUBLISHED]
    known as Dewayne D. Duncan, also    *
    known as Dewayne Steven Duncan,     *
    also known as Dewayne Steveson      *
    Duncan,                             *
    *
    Appellant.              *
    ___________
    Submitted: October 2, 2003
    Filed: October 14, 2003
    ___________
    Before BYE, BOWMAN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Dwayne Duncan challenges the sentence the district court1 imposed after he
    pleaded guilty to failing to disclose an event affecting his continued right to Social
    Security benefits, in violation of 
    42 U.S.C. § 408
    (a). The district court sentenced him
    1
    The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Missouri.
    to 13 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release. On appeal, Duncan’s
    counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), arguing that the district court should have imposed a more lenient
    sentence.
    To the extent counsel argues the district court should have departed downward
    from the Guidelines range to impose probation, the court’s discretionary decision not
    to depart is unreviewable, see United States v. VanHouten, 
    307 F.3d 693
    , 696 (8th
    Cir. 2002); and to the extent counsel argues the district court should have imposed
    a more lenient sentence within the applicable Guidelines range, that argument is
    unreviewable as well, see United States v. Garrido, 
    38 F.3d 981
    , 986 (8th Cir. 1994).
    Following our independent review of the record, see Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    , 80 (1988), we find no other nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, the judgment is
    affirmed. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-1368

Citation Numbers: 77 F. App'x 922

Filed Date: 10/14/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023