Case ID: f-appx_63/html/0281-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jym Jenine Butcher BENNETT, Appellant.
    Nos. 02-3587, 02-3590.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted May 7, 2003.
    Decided May 19, 2003.
    Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
   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 district court 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. 
      
      . The Honorable Dean Whipple, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.