United States v. Daniel Melsha

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: February 27, 2019
• Docket: 18-2380
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 18-2380 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Daniel Wayne Melsha

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________

Submitted: February 18, 2019 Filed: February 27, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________

Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Daniel Melsha directly appeals a within-Guidelines-range sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a school, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 860(a), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). In an Anders brief, Melsha’s counsel raises the district court’s 1 decision to deny an acceptance-of- responsibility reduction and the substantive reasonableness of Melsha’s sentence as two potential issues on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). She also seeks permission to withdraw as counsel.

We conclude that the district court did not clearly err when it declined to adopt an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. See United States v. Bakhtiari, 714 F.3d 1057, 1062 (8th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (reviewing the denial of an acceptance-of- responsibility reduction for clear error). This is not one of those “extraordinary cases” in which a defendant should receive both a reduction for acceptance of responsibility and an enhancement for obstruction of justice. See United States v. Honken, 184 F.3d 961, 968–69 (8th Cir. 1999).

We further conclude that Melsha’s sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461–62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions). The record establishes that the district court adequately considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), when it sentenced him. See United States v. Calloway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (stating that a within-Guidelines-range sentence is presumptively reasonable).

We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and there are no other non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________

1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. -2-