United States v. Gregory Donner

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedDecember 18, 2018
Docket17-3397
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Gregory Donner (United States v. Gregory Donner) 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. Gregory Donner, (8th Cir. 2018).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 17-3397 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Gregory W. Donner

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau ____________

Submitted: December 13, 2018 Filed: December 18, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Gregory Donner directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed

1 The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Donner has not filed a pro se brief.

While Donner challenges a sentencing enhancement the district court imposed for maintaining a manufacturing or distribution premises, he waived his challenge to the enhancement when he withdrew his objection to it in the district court. See United States v. Stoney End of Horn, 829 F.3d 681, 687-88 (8th Cir. 2016). Donner also argues that the drug quantity calculation was erroneous because the entire weight of liquid LSD was used in calculating the LSD quantity, rather than extracting the drug from its carrier. We conclude that any such error in calculating the drug quantity is harmless because it did not change the base offense level imposed and had no effect on Donner’s sentence. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a) (harmless-error rule); United States v. Phillippi, 911 F.2d 149, 151 (8th Cir. 1990). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________

-2-

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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
United States v. Janet Phillippi
911 F.2d 149 (Eighth Circuit, 1990)
United States v. Stoney End of Horn
829 F.3d 681 (Eighth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Gregory Donner, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-gregory-donner-ca8-2018.