Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03371/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03371-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Mark Walker
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3371

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Mark Walker, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 15, 2006 

Filed: June 20, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Mark Walker (Walker) pled guilty to conspiring to distribute more than 500

grams of methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. He initially filed

a written objection to the presentence report’s (PSR) recommendation that he be held

responsible for 15 kilograms or more of methamphetamine mixture. However,

Walker withdrew this objection in open court at the sentencing hearing. The district

court1

 sentenced him to 235 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release.

Appellate Case: 05-3371 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2006 Entry ID: 2058237
-2-

On appeal, Walker argues that his sentence is unreasonable under United States

v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), because the district court

later held two of his co-conspirators, who contested their drug quantities at sentencing,

responsible for more than 500 grams but less than 1.5 kilograms of methamphetamine

mixture. We conclude, by withdrawing his drug-quantity objection below, Walker

waived this argument, precluding appellate review. See United States v. Olano, 507

U.S. 725, 733-34 (1993) (waiver is intentional relinquishment or abandonment of

known right, and it precludes appellate review even for plain error); United States v.

Fortner, No. 05-4099, 2006 WL 1409963 (8th Cir. May 24, 2006) (per curiam)

(unpublished) (holding defendant waived her right to appeal sentencing issues when

she did not object to the PSR quantity calculation); United States v. Thompson, 289

F.3d 524, 526-27 (8th Cir. 2002) (where defendant’s lawyer raised but then withdrew

objection, defendant waived issue under Olano and was precluded from arguing it on

appeal).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3371 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/20/2006 Entry ID: 2058237