United States v. John Hamilton , 99 F. App'x 81 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                       United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 03-3400
    ___________
    United States of America,                 *
    *
    Appellee,                    *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                  * District Court for the District
    * of Nebraska.
    John A. Hamilton, Jr.,                    *
    *         [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                   *
    ___________
    Submitted: May 25, 2004
    Filed: June 3, 2004
    ___________
    Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    John A. Hamilton, Jr., pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute
    50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine, in
    violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1) and (b)(1); knowingly possessing a firearm in
    relation to drug trafficking, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (c); and a related forfeiture
    charge. The district court1 sentenced him to consecutive prison terms of 202 months
    and 60 months, plus 5 years supervised release. On appeal, Mr. Hamilton’s counsel
    1
    The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the
    District of Nebraska.
    has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967).
    We conclude the issues raised by counsel are unreviewable. Mr. Hamilton was
    sentenced within the applicable statutory range and at the bottom of the Guidelines
    range applied to him as a career offender, cf. United States v. Woodrum, 
    959 F.2d 100
    , 101 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (where defendant did not argue sentence was
    imposed in violation of law or as result of incorrect application of Guideline, sentence
    within properly calculated Guidelines range was not reviewable); and the district
    court explicitly recognized its authority to depart from the Guidelines when it decided
    not to grant Mr. Hamilton’s downward-departure motion, see United States v. Koons,
    
    300 F.3d 985
    , 993-94 (8th Cir. 2002) (where district court recognized authority to
    depart but elected not to do so under circumstances, decision is unreviewable).
    Finally, we have carefully reviewed the record independently pursuant to
    Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
     (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous issues.
    Accordingly, we affirm. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-3400

Citation Numbers: 99 F. App'x 81

Filed Date: 6/3/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023