Case ID: f-appx_411/html/0933-01.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. Dale Scott OLTEN, Sr., Appellant.
    No. 10-3574.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 2, 2011.
    Filed: March 7, 2011.
    
      Randall M. England, Jefferson City, MO, for appellant.
    Jim Y. Lynn, Asst. U.S. Atty., Jefferson City, MO, for appellee.
    Before MELLOY, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Dale Olten pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(c)(1) and 924(e) (Count 1), and possessing stolen firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j) (Count 2). The district court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms of 235 months on Count 1 and 120 months on Count 2, and 5 years of supervised release. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), seeking to withdraw; stating that Olten should be allowed to withdraw his plea because of errors at the plea hearing, see Fed.R.Crim.P. 11; and arguing that the court committed procedural error in sentencing Olten and imposed an unreasonable sentence because the court overstated the amount of stolen property found at Olteris residence.

We find no indication that the unobjected-to Rule 11 errors influenced Olteris decision to plead guilty, see United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83, 124 S.Ct. 2333, 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004) (plain-error review), and we conclude that Olteris request to withdraw his plea is not cognizable on appeal, see United States v. Murphy, 899 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir.1990). Further, we do not agree that the district court overstated the amount of stolen property, and we conclude that the court took into account all the relevant sentencing factors, committed no procedural error, and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (in reviewing sentence, appellate court first ensures that district court committed no significant procedural error, and then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard; if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir.2005) (describing abuse of discretion).

Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 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 judgment. 
      
      . The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.