Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03992/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03992-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel Marbach
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the

District of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3992

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of South Dakota.

*

Daniel Marbach, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 6, 2006

Filed: January 23, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Daniel Marbach challenges the 24-month prison sentence the district court1

imposed after he pleaded guilty to failing to pay a past-due child support obligation

in excess of $10,000, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 228(a)(3). His counsel has moved

to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing

that Marbach’s sentence is too severe and an abuse of discretion. In his pro se

supplemental brief, Marbach raises a multitude of arguments concerning his guilty

plea and sentence, including an argument that the district court committed error under

Appellate Case: 04-3992 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/23/2006 Entry ID: 2000143
-2-

United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and violated Marbach’s Sixth

Amendment rights. 

We conclude that the sentence was not unreasonable, and therefore was not an

abuse of discretion: Marbach had a lengthy history of not making child support

payments, resulting in a significant arrearage, and he also had an extensive criminal

history. See Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 765 (sentences should be reviewed for

unreasonableness). To the extent counsel is raising an Eighth Amendment argument,

it fails. See United States v. Collins, 340 F.3d 672, 679 (8th Cir. 2003) (Eighth

Amendment forbids only extreme sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the

crime); cf. Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 961, 994-95 (1991) (state sentence

of mandatory life imprisonment without possibility of parole for possessing 672 grams

of cocaine did not violate Eighth Amendment).

The district court did not apply the Guidelines in a mandatory fashion, and thus

there was no Sixth Amendment violation. It is unclear from the sentencing transcript

to what extent the district court considered the Guidelines in sentencing Marbach, as

it was required to do. See United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1002 (8th Cir.) (after

Booker, district court must first determine appropriate Guidelines range before

determining whether to impose non-Guidelines sentence), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 276

(2005). Even assuming the district court failed to consider the proper Guidelines

range, we conclude that Marbach cannot show any error affected his substantial rights,

because the district court stated that it would have given Marbach an even more severe

sentence were it not for the statutory maximum. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a) (error that

does not affect substantial rights is harmless); cf. United States v. Hadash, 408 F.3d

1080, 1082 (8th Cir. 2005) (if Guidelines were incorrectly applied, remand is

unnecessary if error in application was harmless, such as when district court would

have imposed same sentence absent error). 

Appellate Case: 04-3992 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/23/2006 Entry ID: 2000143
-3-

We reject Marbach’s remaining arguments without extended discussion

because, among other things, they are raised for the first time on appeal; they should

be raised in collateral proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255; they are too vague to

address, or are foreclosed by his guilty plea; or they are plainly negated by the record.

Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3992 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/23/2006 Entry ID: 2000143