United States v. Dale Olten, Sr.

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Dale Olten, Sr.

411 F. App'x 933

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 7, 2011

Docket10-3574

StatusUnpublished

This text of 411 F. App'x 933 (United States v. Dale Olten, Sr.) 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. Dale Olten, Sr., 411 F. App'x 933 (8th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Dale Olten pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(c)(1) and 924(e) (Count 1), and possessing stolen firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j) (Count 2). The district court 1 sentenced him to concurrent prison terms of 235 months on Count 1 and 120 months on Count 2, and 5 years of supervised release. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), seeking to withdraw; stating that Olten should be allowed to withdraw his plea because of errors at the plea hearing, see Fed.R.Crim.P. 11; and arguing that the court committed procedural error in sentencing Olten and imposed an unreasonable sentence because the court overstated the amount of stolen property found at Olteris residence.

We find no indication that the unobjected-to Rule 11 errors influenced Olteris decision to plead guilty, see United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83, 124 S.Ct. 2333, 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004) (plain-error review), and we conclude that Olteris request to withdraw his plea is not cognizable on appeal, see United States v. Murphy, 899 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir.1990). Further, we do not agree that the district court overstated the amount of stolen *935 property, and we conclude that the court took into account all the relevant sentencing factors, committed no procedural error, and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (in reviewing sentence, appellate court first ensures that district court committed no significant procedural error, and then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard; if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir.2005) (describing abuse of discretion).

Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment.

1

. The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

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

PER CURIAM.

Dale Olten pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(c)(1) and 924(e) (Count 1), and possessing stolen firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j) (Count 2). The district court 1 sentenced him to concurrent prison terms of 235 months on Count 1 and 120 months on Count 2, and 5 years of supervised release. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), seeking to withdraw; stating that Olten should be allowed to withdraw his plea because of errors at the plea hearing, see Fed.R.Crim.P. 11; and arguing that the court committed procedural error in sentencing Olten and imposed an unreasonable sentence because the court overstated the amount of stolen property found at Olteris residence.

We find no indication that the unobjected-to Rule 11 errors influenced Olteris decision to plead guilty, see United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83, 124 S.Ct. 2333, 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004) (plain-error review), and we conclude that Olteris request to withdraw his plea is not cognizable on appeal, see United States v. Murphy, 899 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir.1990). Further, we do not agree that the district court overstated the amount of stolen *935 property, and we conclude that the court took into account all the relevant sentencing factors, committed no procedural error, and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (in reviewing sentence, appellate court first ensures that district court committed no significant procedural error, and then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard; if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir.2005) (describing abuse of discretion).

Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment.

1

. The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

411 F. App'x 933, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-dale-olten-sr-ca8-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack