United States v. Rayvell Vann , 103 F. App'x 40 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 03-3195
    ___________
    United States of America,               *
    *
    Appellee,                  *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                * District Court for the
    * District of Nebraska.
    Rayvell Vann,                           *
    * [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: June 4, 2004
    Filed: June 10, 2004
    ___________
    Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Rayvell Vann challenges the sentence the district court1 imposed upon his
    guilty plea to conspiring to commit bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and
    1344. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under
    Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967).
    At sentencing, over Vann’s objection, the district court added 3 levels to
    Vann’s offense level for being a manager or supervisor of criminal activity involving
    1
    The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the
    District of Nebraska.
    5 or more participants. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b). Vann’s total offense level of 18
    resulted in a Guidelines imprisonment range of 57-71 months. After granting the
    government’s substantial-assistance downward-departure motion, the district court
    sentenced Vann to 36 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release, and
    ordered him to pay restitution. On appeal Vann argues that the district court
    erroneously applied the aggravating-role enhancement.
    We conclude that the issue is unreviewable, however, because Vann’s
    departure sentence is below the applicable Guidelines range, with or without the
    enhancement. See United States v. Baker, 
    64 F.3d 439
    , 441 (8th Cir. 1995)
    (challenge to enhancement unreviewable where defendant received sentence below
    applicable Guidelines range with or without enhancement); United States v. Wyatt,
    
    26 F.3d 863
    , 864 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (challenge to enhancement
    unreviewable where sentence was downward departure from Guidelines range that
    would have resulted if defendant had prevailed); United States v. Dutcher, 
    8 F.3d 11
    ,
    12-13 (8th Cir. 1993) (extent of downward departure unreviewable regardless of
    district court’s reasons for refraining from departing further; rejecting argument that
    allegedly erroneous Guidelines “starting point” caused court to depart insufficiently).
    Having found no nonfrivolous issues after reviewing the record independently
    under Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    (1988), we affirm. We also grant counsel’s
    motion to withdraw.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-3195

Citation Numbers: 103 F. App'x 40

Filed Date: 6/10/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023