Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03603/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03603-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Zakee Shareef
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. 06-3603

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Northern District of Iowa.

*

Zakee Shareef, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 2, 2008

Filed: January 10, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Zakee Shareef pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute 50 grams or more of

cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and possessing with intent to distribute

50 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district

court1

 sentenced him below the advisory Guidelines range to 165 months in prison and

5 years of supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has filed a brief under Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and has moved to withdraw. For the reasons

discussed below, we affirm.

Appellate Case: 06-3603 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/10/2008 Entry ID: 3390285
-2-

Counsel argues that two aspects of the Guidelines violate the Eighth

Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment--the sentencing

disparity between cocaine base and powder cocaine, and the career offender

provision--but we have previously rejected each argument in United States v.

Thompson, 51 F.3d 122, 127 (8th Cir. 1995), and United States v. Foote, 920 F.2d

1395, 1401 (8th Cir. 1990), respectively.

Shareef makes three arguments in his pro se supplemental brief. His challenge

to the validity of Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), is

foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Torres-Villalobos, 487 F.3d 607, 613

(8th Cir. 2007). His two remaining allegations, about a promised lower sentence and

judicial bias, are not supported by the record.

Having found no nonfrivolous issues after reviewing the record independently

under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we affirm the judgment of the district court

and grant counsel’s request to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3603 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/10/2008 Entry ID: 3390285