Case ID: f-appx_605/html/0585-01.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, Plaintiff-Appellee v. David Charles SCHAER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-3168.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 26, 2015.
    Filed: June 1, 2015.
    John H. Lammers, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, argued, Sioux City, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    David Charles Schaer, argued, Leavenworth, KS, pro se.
    Leslie E. Stokke, argued, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

A jury found David Charles Schaer guilty of conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 846. The district court sentenced him to 110 months in prison, followed by 5 years of supervised release. Counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising several issues, which Schaer repeats in a pro se supplemental brief. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

This court rejects each of the arguments raised, because (1) the evidence was sufficient to sustain Schaer’s conviction, see United States v. Ortega, 750 F.3d 1020, 1023-24 (8th Cir.2014); (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Schaer’s objection to the admission of evidence, see United States v. Augustine, 663 F.3d 367, 372 (8th Cir.2011); (3) the parties stipulated to Schaer’s base offense level, and therefore this court will not review the issue of drug quantity, see United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993); (4) the district court did not plainly err in failing to apply, sua sponte, a mitigating-role reduction, see United States v. Marquez, 605 F.3d 604, 611 (8th Cir.2010); and (5) nothing in the record suggests that the 110-month prison sentence, at the bottom of the Guidelines range, was unreasonable, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc). An independent review under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), reveals no nonfrivolous issues.

The judgment is affirmed. 
      
      . The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.