Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02086/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02086-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marcus Dewayne Harris
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2086

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Marcus Dewayne Harris, * Western District of Missouri.

*

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: March 31, 2008

Filed: April 3, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Marcus Dewayne Harris appeals the 262-month sentence the district court1

imposed after he pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute 5 grams or more

of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed

a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Harris’s sentence

is unreasonable.

Appellate Case: 07-2086 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2008 Entry ID: 3419966
-2-

We conclude that Harris’s within-Guidelines-range sentence is not

unreasonable, because nothing in the record indicates the court overlooked a relevant

factor, gave significant weight to an improper factor, or made a clear error of

judgment in weighing appropriate factors. See United States v. Denton, 434 F.3d

1104, 1113 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th Cir.

2005). Counsel argues that Harris’s sentence is unreasonable because the increase in

his statutory maximum sentence, pursuant to the government’s 21 U.S.C. § 851

information, unfairly bumped up Harris’s Guidelines career-offender imprisonment

range. This argument is unavailing: the district court heard this argument at

sentencing and declined to vary from the Guidelines range on this basis, and relevant

Guidelines commentary specifically authorizes such an increase in calculating the

career-offender offense level. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, comment. (n.2).

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to

withdraw, and we affirm the district court’s judgment.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-2086 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2008 Entry ID: 3419966