Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03334/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03334-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
James Diamond Wainwright
Appellant

Document Text:

1 The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3334

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

James Diamond Wainwright, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 4, 2007

Filed: October 9, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

James Wainwright pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit bank fraud and other

offenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1349, and bank fraud, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 1344. At sentencing, the district court1

 determined that Wainwright’s

advisory Guidelines imprisonment range was 41-51 months, noted its consideration

of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and sentenced Wainwright to concurrent 46-month

prison terms, to be followed by 5 years of supervised release. Wainwright appeals,

Appellate Case: 06-3334 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/09/2007 Entry ID: 3359841
-2-

and in a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel raises issues

concerning the reasonableness of Wainwright’s prison sentence.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, affording a presumption of

reasonableness if the sentence is within a correctly calculated Guidelines range. See

Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007) (approving presumption of

reasonableness for sentences within advisory Guidelines range). Upon careful review

of the record, we conclude that the district court correctly calculated Wainwright’s

advisory Guidelines imprisonment range and reasonably sentenced him within that

range. See United States v. Two Shields, 2007 WL 2301911, at *5 (8th Cir. Aug. 14,

2007) (defendant overcomes presumption of reasonableness if district court failed to

consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant

weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or weighed appropriate factors in clearly

erroneous way). 

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

(1988), we have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm,

and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3334 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/09/2007 Entry ID: 3359841