United States v. Joseph O. Ramsey

131 F.3d 144, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 39166, 1997 WL 746773
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedDecember 4, 1997
Docket97-2653
StatusUnpublished

This text of 131 F.3d 144 (United States v. Joseph O. Ramsey) 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. Joseph O. Ramsey, 131 F.3d 144, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 39166, 1997 WL 746773 (8th Cir. 1997).

Opinion

131 F.3d 144

NOTICE: Eighth Circuit Rule 28A(k) governs citation of unpublished opinions and provides that they are not precedent and generally should not be cited unless relevant to establishing the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, the law of the case, or if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue and no published opinion would serve as well.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Joseph O. RAMSEY, Appellant.

No. 97-2653.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 1997.
Filed: December 4, 1997.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Before WOLLMAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Joseph Otis Ramsey pleaded guilty to bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). The district court1 imposed a sentence of 30 months' imprisonment, three years' supervised release, and restitution. This appeal followed. Counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Ramsey has not filed a supplemental brief.

In his Anders brief, counsel argues that the district court erred in imposing restitution. We conclude that Ramsey failed to preserve his right to challenge the imposition of restitution on appeal because he failed to object at sentencing. In any event, we find no clear error. See United States v. Kessler, 48 F.3d 1064, 1066 (8th Cir.1995) (reviewing for plain error where defendant failed to preserve challenge to imposition of restitution by not objecting at sentencing).

After conducting the record review required by Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues.

The judgment is affirmed.

1

The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri

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. Morris B. Kessler
48 F.3d 1064 (Eighth Circuit, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
131 F.3d 144, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 39166, 1997 WL 746773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-joseph-o-ramsey-ca8-1997.