United States v. Eugene Johnson , 11 F. App'x 636 ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 00-3222
    ___________
    United States of America,                 *
    *
    Appellee,             * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the Western
    v.                                  * District of Missouri.
    *
    Eugene Johnson,                           *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.            *
    ___________
    Submitted: March 28, 2001
    Filed: April 3, 2001
    ___________
    Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, FAGG, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Eugene Johnson pleaded guilty to money laundering and conspiracy to distribute
    cocaine and cocaine base. At sentencing in 1998, Johnson faced a statutory maximum
    of 120 months on the money laundering charge and a sentencing range of 168-210
    months on the drug charges. Because the Government filed a substantial assistance
    motion, the district court sentenced Johnson to three years probation. Two years later,
    Johnson's probation officer sought to revoke Johnson's probation. At the revocation
    hearing, Johnson admitted he violated several of his probation conditions. The district
    court revoked Johnson's probation. Rather than exercising its discretion to begin the
    sentencing process anew, the district court sentenced Johnson within the 1998
    sentencing range to concurrent sentences of 120 months for money laundering and 168
    months on the drug charges. See 
    18 U.S.C.A. § 3565
    (a)(2) (West Supp. 2000); United
    States v. Iverson, 
    90 F.3d 1340
    , 1345 (8th Cir. 1996). Johnson appeals arguing the
    district court committed error in denying him an acceptance of responsibility reduction
    on the 168-month drug sentence. The Government contends Johnson waived this issue
    by failing to appeal his 1998 sentence. An appeal from a probation revocation "is not
    the proper avenue through which to attack the validity of the original sentence." United
    States v. Gerace, 
    997 F.2d 1293
    , 1295 (9th Cir. 1993). Thus, we do not reach the
    merits of the acceptance of responsibility issue. Indeed, we cannot do so because the
    original sentencing transcript is not part of the record in this proceeding. We affirm
    Johnson's sentence.*
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    *
    The Honorable Dean Whipple, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the
    Western District of Missouri.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-3222

Citation Numbers: 11 F. App'x 636

Filed Date: 4/3/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023