Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03195/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03195-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas Stoltenberg
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3195

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Thomas Stoltenberg, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 26, 2006

Filed: January 22, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Stoltenberg pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute

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

counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), asking us to review the reasonableness of the sentence the district court1

imposed. We denied counsel’s withdrawal motion and ordered supplemental briefing

as to whether the government breached the parties’ plea agreement by not filing at

sentencing a motion under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b), whether any such breach is subject

Appellate Case: 05-3195 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/22/2007 Entry ID: 3269762
-2-

to review for plain error or otherwise, and, if so, whether relief is warranted under the

applicable standard of review. 

Upon reviewing the parties’ supplemental briefs, we agree with the government

that under our governing precedent, Stoltenberg waived his right to raise an argument

based on the government’s failure to move for a third level acceptance-ofresponsibility reduction. See United States v. Cohen, 60 F.3d 460, 462 (8th Cir. 1995)

(defendant’s failure to allege breach of agreement at sentencing, restate terms of

agreement in open court, or move to withdraw plea based on breach constituted

waiver of issue); United States v. Archambault, 344 F.3d 732, 737 (8th Cir. 2003).

We also conclude that Stoltenberg’s sentence within the unobjected-to Guidelines

range was not unreasonable.

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3195 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/22/2007 Entry ID: 3269762