Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-10-01125/USCOURTS-ca8-10-01125-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Adam James Rollins
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The HONORABLE LINDA R. READE, Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1125

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Northern District of Iowa.

*

Adam James Rollins, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 6, 2010

Filed: August 6, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Adam Rollins challenges the 10-year statutory

minimum prison term the district court1

 imposed upon his guilty plea to knowingly

and intentionally conspiring to manufacture 5 grams or more of actual

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), having

previously been convicted of a felony drug offense. Counsel has filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the sentence is unreasonable and

violates the Eighth Amendment.

Appellate Case: 10-1125 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/06/2010 Entry ID: 3691069
-2-

We note that the district court did not have authority to sentence Rollins below

the statutory minimum of ten years in prison because the government had not moved

for a departure based on substantial assistance and Rollins was not eligible for

safety-valve relief due to his criminal history. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)

(mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 10 years for listed offenses if person

has prior conviction for felony drug offense); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (upon

government’s motion, court can impose sentence below statutory minimum sentence

to reflect defendant’s substantial assistance), (f) (court shall impose sentence pursuant

to Guidelines, without regard to statutory minimum sentence, if court finds, inter alia,

that defendant does not have more than one criminal history point); United States v.

Chacon, 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003) (only authority to depart from statutory

minimum is found in § 3553(e) and (f)); see also United States v. Gregg, 451 F.3d

930, 937 (8th Cir. 2006) (United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), does not

relate to statutorily-imposed sentences). We also reject Rollins’s Eighth Amendment

argument. See United States v. Garcia, 521 F.3d 898, 901 (8th Cir. 2008) (“We have

repeatedly held mandatory minimum penalties for drug offenses do not violate the

Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments.”).

Upon our independent review under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988),

we have found no nonfrivolous issue. Thus, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 10-1125 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/06/2010 Entry ID: 3691069