Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02325/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02325-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Adam Bates
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2325

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Adam Bates, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 15, 2005

Filed: February 21, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Adam Bates appeals the 10-month sentence the district court1

 imposed after he

pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503. Bates’s

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

738 (1967). Counsel raises as a potential issue whether the district court abused its

discretion by failing to grant Bates’s request for a sentence below the Guidelines range

and thereby imposed an unreasonable sentence. Bates was granted leave to file a pro

se supplemental brief, but he did not do so. The government has moved to dismiss for

Appellate Case: 05-2325 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/21/2006 Entry ID: 2011718
-2-

lack of jurisdiction arguing that this court cannot review for reasonableness sentences

imposed within the advisory Guidelines. 

After United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), we review for

unreasonableness a sentence that is within the advisory Guidelines range; therefore,

we reject the government’s argument that we lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.

See United States v. Mickelson, 433 F. 3d 1050, 1052-55 (8th Cir. 2005);United States

v. McCully, 407 F.3d 931, 934 n.2 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 305 (2005);

United States v. Frokjer, 415 F.3d 865, 875 n.3 (8th Cir. 2005).

As to counsel’s arguments we conclude that the denial of Bates’s request for a

sentence below the Guidelines range is unreviewable to the extent that it challenges

the district court's discretionary decision not to depart downward under the advisory

guidelines. See Frokjer, 415 F. 3d at 875. To the extent that the denial of Bates's

request for a sentence below the guidelines range is based on 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),

then it is reviewable. See Michelson, 433 F. 3d at 1054.

Because the district court sentenced Bates within the applicable Guidelines

range and considered the sentencing factors in § 3553(a), we conclude that the

sentence is not unreasonable. See Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 765-66 (appellate courts

should review post-Booker sentences for reasonableness, using factors in § 3553(a)

to guide their determination); United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.

2005) (sentence within Guidelines range “is presumptively reasonable”).

Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we

find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw,

deny the government’s motion to dismiss, and affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2325 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/21/2006 Entry ID: 2011718