United States v. Adam William Gooder

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Adam William Gooder

124 F.3d 985, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 23520, 1997 WL 548918

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 5, 1997

Docket96-4288

StatusPublished

This text of 124 F.3d 985 (United States v. Adam William Gooder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Adam William Gooder, 124 F.3d 985, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 23520, 1997 WL 548918 (8th Cir. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Adam William Gooder appeals the 18-month sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to a bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3. Gooder contends the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(1) by considering disputed information in setting his sentence at the high end of the Guidelines range.

Contrary to Gooder’s argument, we believe the district court sufficiently indicated that it was not going to consider the controverted matters, and that the seriousness of Gooder’s undisputed offense conduct — driving the getaway vehicle — justified a sentence at the top of the range for the accessory charge. See United States v. Willis, 559 F.2d 443, 444 (5th Cir.1977) (per curiam) (defendant was aider and abettor where, after learning of robbery when codefendants ran out of bank and into his car, he attempted to help them escape; aider and abettor is liable as principal). We note that Gooder’s sentence was within the range anticipated by the plea agreement.

Accordingly, we affirm.

MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge, dissents.

1

. The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesola.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Adam William Gooder appeals the 18-month sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to a bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3. Gooder contends the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(1) by considering disputed information in setting his sentence at the high end of the Guidelines range.

Contrary to Gooder’s argument, we believe the district court sufficiently indicated that it was not going to consider the controverted matters, and that the seriousness of Gooder’s undisputed offense conduct — driving the getaway vehicle — justified a sentence at the top of the range for the accessory charge. See United States v. Willis, 559 F.2d 443, 444 (5th Cir.1977) (per curiam) (defendant was aider and abettor where, after learning of robbery when codefendants ran out of bank and into his car, he attempted to help them escape; aider and abettor is liable as principal). We note that Gooder’s sentence was within the range anticipated by the plea agreement.

Accordingly, we affirm.

MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge, dissents.

1

. The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesola.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 F.3d 985, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 23520, 1997 WL 548918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-adam-william-gooder-ca8-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack