United States v. Henry Oberholtz

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Henry Oberholtz

6 F. App'x 507

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 26, 2001

Docket00-1342 WM

StatusUnpublished

This text of 6 F. App'x 507 (United States v. Henry Oberholtz) 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. Henry Oberholtz, 6 F. App'x 507 (8th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Henry T. Oberholtz appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court 1 for the Western District of Missouri upon his guilty plea to attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court sentenced appellant to 72 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. For reversal, appellant argues that (1) the district court erred in applying an enhancement for possessing firearms in connection with the offense, and (2) the government — after moving for a substantial-assistance downward departure, which the court granted — breached the spirit of the plea agreement by bringing to the court’s attention adverse information about Oberholtz’s conduct while the government was recommending the appropriate extent of departure. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

We first conclude that Oberholtz’s challenge to the firearm enhancement is unreviewable because the district court departed below the Guidelines range — the statutory minimum of 120 months imprisonment — that would have resulted with or without the enhancement. See United States v. Baker, 64 F.3d 439, 441 (8th Cir.1995) (allegedly erroneous application *509 of weapon enhancement unreviewable where defendant received sentence below applicable Guidelines range with or without enhancement).

Second, we conclude that the plea agreement — which expressly reserved the government’s right to bring to the district court’s attention any information about Oberholtz’s conduct that was relevant to determining the appropriate extent of the departure — was not breached. Cf. United States v. McKnight, 186 F.3d 867, 869 (8th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (plea agreement was not breached where government promised to file downward-departure motion, and did so, but also disclosed to district court information regarding defendant’s criminal conduct which led court to deny motion).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

1

. The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, 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.

Henry T. Oberholtz appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court 1 for the Western District of Missouri upon his guilty plea to attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court sentenced appellant to 72 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. For reversal, appellant argues that (1) the district court erred in applying an enhancement for possessing firearms in connection with the offense, and (2) the government — after moving for a substantial-assistance downward departure, which the court granted — breached the spirit of the plea agreement by bringing to the court’s attention adverse information about Oberholtz’s conduct while the government was recommending the appropriate extent of departure. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

We first conclude that Oberholtz’s challenge to the firearm enhancement is unreviewable because the district court departed below the Guidelines range — the statutory minimum of 120 months imprisonment — that would have resulted with or without the enhancement. See United States v. Baker, 64 F.3d 439, 441 (8th Cir.1995) (allegedly erroneous application *509 of weapon enhancement unreviewable where defendant received sentence below applicable Guidelines range with or without enhancement).

Second, we conclude that the plea agreement — which expressly reserved the government’s right to bring to the district court’s attention any information about Oberholtz’s conduct that was relevant to determining the appropriate extent of the departure — was not breached. Cf. United States v. McKnight, 186 F.3d 867, 869 (8th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (plea agreement was not breached where government promised to file downward-departure motion, and did so, but also disclosed to district court information regarding defendant’s criminal conduct which led court to deny motion).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

1

. The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 F. App'x 507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-henry-oberholtz-ca8-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack