United States v. Webster

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Webster

197 F. App'x 519

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 22, 2006

DocketNo. 05-3146

StatusPublished

This text of 197 F. App'x 519 (United States v. Webster) 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. Webster, 197 F. App'x 519 (8th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Gregory Webster appeals the 252-month sentence the district court¹ imposed after granting the government’s Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) motion to reduce Webster’s sentence for his post-sentencing substantial assistance. In a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel argues that Webster’s sentence is excessive and unreasonable. Counsel’s argument is unavailing. See United States v. Coppedge, 135 F.3d 598, 599 (8th Cir.1998) (per curiam) (challenge to extent of district court’s departure upon government’s Rule 35(b) motion is unreviewable because appeal was not based on any criteria listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)); cf. United States v. Noe, 411 F.3d 878, 885 (8th Cir.) (extent of downward departure is not reviewable), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 184, 163 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005); United States v. Williams, 324 F.3d 1049, 1050 (8th Cir.2003) (per curiam) (refusal to depart is not reviewable unless defendant makes substantial showing that court’s decision was based on unconstitutional motive).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we deny Webster’s motion for appointment of counsel, and we affirm.

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

PER CURIAM.

Gregory Webster appeals the 252-month sentence the district court¹ imposed after granting the government’s Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) motion to reduce Webster’s sentence for his post-sentencing substantial assistance. In a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel argues that Webster’s sentence is excessive and unreasonable. Counsel’s argument is unavailing. See United States v. Coppedge, 135 F.3d 598, 599 (8th Cir.1998) (per curiam) (challenge to extent of district court’s departure upon government’s Rule 35(b) motion is unreviewable because appeal was not based on any criteria listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)); cf. United States v. Noe, 411 F.3d 878, 885 (8th Cir.) (extent of downward departure is not reviewable), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 184, 163 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005); United States v. Williams, 324 F.3d 1049, 1050 (8th Cir.2003) (per curiam) (refusal to depart is not reviewable unless defendant makes substantial showing that court’s decision was based on unconstitutional motive).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we deny Webster’s motion for appointment of counsel, and we affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 F. App'x 519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-webster-ca8-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack