United States v. Jym Jenine Bennett

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Jym Jenine Bennett

63 F. App'x 281

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMay 19, 2003

Docket02-3587, 02-3590

StatusUnpublished

This text of 63 F. App'x 281 (United States v. Jym Jenine Bennett) 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. Jym Jenine Bennett, 63 F. App'x 281 (8th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jym Jenine Bennett pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and conspiring to defraud the government, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 286. At a consolidated sentencing hearing, the dis *282 trict court 1 denied Bennett’s request for an acceptance-of-responsibi]ity reduction and sentenced her to concurrent terms of 120 months’ imprisonment, 5 years’ supervised release, and $56,385 restitution, to be paid jointly and severally with her codefendant.

In this consolidated appeal, Bennett’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), questioning whether the district court erred in denying the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction and in ordering the restitution.

Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the district court did not clearly err in denying the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, given its finding that Bennett belatedly reported a post-plea arrest to pretrial services. See United States v. Ervasti, 201 F.3d 1029, 1043 (8th Cir.2000) (standard of review); United States v. Ceccarani, 98 F.3d 126, 130-31 (3d Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1155, 117 S.Ct. 1094, 137 L.Ed.2d 227 (1997). Further, the court did not plainly err in ordering restitution. See U.S.S.G. § 5El.l(a)(l) (1995) (requiring restitution); United States v. Riebold, 135 F.3d 1226, 1231 (8th Cir.) (plain-error review where defendant fails to object to restitution order at sentencing), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 944, 118 S.Ct. 2356, 141 L.Ed.2d 725 (1998); see also United States v. Manzer, 69 F.3d 222, 229 (8th Cir.1995) (restitution may be ordered even though defendant is indigent at time of sentencing). We have reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues. Ae-cordingly, the judgment is affirmed. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Dean Whipple, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

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

PER CURIAM.

Jym Jenine Bennett pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and conspiring to defraud the government, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 286. At a consolidated sentencing hearing, the dis *282 trict court 1 denied Bennett’s request for an acceptance-of-responsibi]ity reduction and sentenced her to concurrent terms of 120 months’ imprisonment, 5 years’ supervised release, and $56,385 restitution, to be paid jointly and severally with her codefendant.

In this consolidated appeal, Bennett’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), questioning whether the district court erred in denying the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction and in ordering the restitution.

Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the district court did not clearly err in denying the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, given its finding that Bennett belatedly reported a post-plea arrest to pretrial services. See United States v. Ervasti, 201 F.3d 1029, 1043 (8th Cir.2000) (standard of review); United States v. Ceccarani, 98 F.3d 126, 130-31 (3d Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1155, 117 S.Ct. 1094, 137 L.Ed.2d 227 (1997). Further, the court did not plainly err in ordering restitution. See U.S.S.G. § 5El.l(a)(l) (1995) (requiring restitution); United States v. Riebold, 135 F.3d 1226, 1231 (8th Cir.) (plain-error review where defendant fails to object to restitution order at sentencing), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 944, 118 S.Ct. 2356, 141 L.Ed.2d 725 (1998); see also United States v. Manzer, 69 F.3d 222, 229 (8th Cir.1995) (restitution may be ordered even though defendant is indigent at time of sentencing). We have reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues. Ae-cordingly, the judgment is affirmed. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Dean Whipple, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 F. App'x 281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jym-jenine-bennett-ca8-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack