Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01194/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01194-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joshua Thorpe
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of

Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 06-3125/07-1194

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Joshua Thorpe, also known as Juice, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 3, 2007

Filed: December 6, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Joshua Thorpe, who was found guilty by a jury of conspiring to distribute a

mixture containing cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1) and

846, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), appeals the sentence imposed by the district court 1

 following

a remand for resentencing. At the August 2006 resentencing, the district court found

by a preponderance of the evidence that Thorpe’s drug offense involved at least 500

grams but less than 1.5 kilograms of cocaine base, departed to a Category II criminal

Appellate Case: 07-1194 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/06/2007 Entry ID: 3379562
-2-

history under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3, and calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 210-

262 months on Count 1. The court sentenced Thorpe to consecutive prison terms of

210 months on Count 1 and 60 months on Count 2, and concurrent supervised release

terms of 5 years and 3 years, respectively.

Thorpe’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court abused its discretion

by imposing an unreasonable sentence. Thorpe filed a separate notice of appeal

(NOA) (which initiated Appeal No. 07-1194), and has filed a supplemental pro se

brief asserting ineffective assistance of counsel, and a motion for appointment of new

counsel.

Thorpe’s pro se NOA was untimely filed. Accordingly, we dismiss Appeal No.

07-1194 for lack of jurisdiction. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1) (10-day filing period in

criminal case); 4(b)(4) (district court may extend time to file NOA for period not to

exceed thirty days from expiration of time otherwise prescribed); United States v.

Carter, 990 F.2d 402, 403 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (despite court’s granting of

motion to extend time to file NOA, NOA is untimely after the expiration of forty days

from the entry of final judgment and “there is nothing either the trial court or the court

of appeals can do to extend the time for filing notice of appeal”; timely filing of NOA

is mandatory and jurisdictional).

We review the overall reasonableness of Thorpe’s sentence for an abuse of

discretion, and we note that the presumption of reasonableness most certainly applies

given that Thorpe received a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range calculated

after a downward departure. See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-63

(2007) (approving presumption); cf. United States v. Harris, 493 F.3d 928, 932 (8th

Cir. 2007) (sentence within advisory Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable).

We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States

v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th. Cir. 2005) (listing circumstances in which

Appellate Case: 07-1194 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/06/2007 Entry ID: 3379562
-3-

abuse of discretion may occur). The district court understood the Guidelines as

advisory, recognized its authority to depart (and, in fact, did depart), and concluded

after considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors that there was no basis for a sentence

below the advisory Guidelines range. See United States v. Hawk Wing, 433 F.3d 622,

631 (8th Cir. 2006) (district court should follow three steps in sentencing: determine

appropriate Guidelines range, determine if a departure is warranted, and consider the

§ 3553(a) factors); United States v. Thomas, 454 F.3d 904, 905 (8th Cir. 2006)

(sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range affirmed where district court

understood Guidelines were advisory and that it should fashion sentence by reference

to § 3553(a) factors).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues. We decline to address

Thorpe’s ineffective-assistance argument on direct appeal. See United States v.

Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2006) (court will consider ineffective

assistance of counsel on direct appeal when record has been fully developed, where

not to act would amount to plain miscarriage of justice, or where counsel’s error is

apparent). Accordingly, we affirm in Appeal No. 06-3125, grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw, and deny Thorpe’s motion for appointment of counsel. As previously

stated, Appeal No. 07-1194 is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

__________________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1194 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/06/2007 Entry ID: 3379562