Case ID: f-appx_271/html/0540-01.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. Marcus Dewayne HARRIS, Appellant.
    No. 07-2086.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 31, 2008.
    Filed: April 3, 2008.
    Troy K. Stabenow, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Jefferson City, MO (Raymond C. Conrad, Jr., Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO, on the brief), for appellant.
    Jim Y. Lynn, Asst. U.S. Atty., Jefferson City, MO, for appellee.
    Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Marcus Dewayne Harris appeals the 262-month sentence the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute 5 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). His 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), arguing that Harris’s sentence is unreasonable.

We conclude that Harris’s within-Guidelines-range sentence is not unreasonable, because nothing in the record indicates the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper factor, or made a clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors. See United States v. Denton, 434 F.3d 1104, 1113 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th Cir.2005). Counsel argues that Harris’s sentence is unreasonable because the increase in his statutory maximum sentence, pursuant to the government’s 21 U.S.C. § 851 information, unfairly bumped up Harris’s Guidelines career-offender imprisonment range. This argument is unavailing: the district court heard this argument at sentencing and declined to vary from the Guidelines range on this basis, and relevant Guidelines commentary specifically authorizes such an increase in calculating the career-offender offense level. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, comment. (n. 2).

After reviewing 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 grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm the district court’s judgment. 
      
      . The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.