United States v. Michael Coonce

35 F. App'x 276
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMay 6, 2002
Docket01-3967
StatusUnpublished

This text of 35 F. App'x 276 (United States v. Michael Coonce) 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. Michael Coonce, 35 F. App'x 276 (8th Cir. 2002).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Michael Coonce pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute in excess of 500 grams of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The district court, 1 after granting motions for downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), sentenced Coonce to 60 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and has filed a brief arguing that the district court erred in giving Coonce a 2-level firearm enhancement and in denying him a minor-participant reduction.

These arguments are unreviewable because Coonce’s 60-month sentence is still a downward departure from the Guidelines range that would have resulted if he had prevailed on the arguments. See United States v. Wyatt, 26 F.3d 863, 864 (8th Cir.1994) (per curiam). Further, even if the arguments were renewable, we would not find that the district court clearly erred either in giving Coonce the firearm enhancement or in denying him a minor-participant reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 comment, (n.3); United States v. Calderin-Rodriguez, 244 F.3d 977, 987-88 (8th Cir.2001); United States v. O’Dell, 204 F.3d 829, 837-38 (8th Cir.2000). Moreover, following our independent review, see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, *277 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues.

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

1

. The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.

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. Glynn Wyatt
26 F.3d 863 (Eighth Circuit, 1994)
United States v. Gary O'Dell
204 F.3d 829 (Eighth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
35 F. App'x 276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-michael-coonce-ca8-2002.