United States v. LaMar Clark
This text of 22 F. App'x 656 (United States v. LaMar Clark) 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.
Opinion
[UNPUBLISHED]
Having pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute cocaine base, Lamar Clark appeals the sentence imposed by the district court. Clark’s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), in which he argues the court should have granted Clark’s U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0 downward-departure motion. Clark has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.
Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the issue raised by counsel is unreviewable because the district court was aware of its authority to depart from the Guidelines. See United States v. Lim, 235 F.3d 382, 385 (8th Cir.2000). Having found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal after reviewing the record independently in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
A true copy.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
22 F. App'x 656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-lamar-clark-ca8-2001.