Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03076/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03076-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nicole Josette Romosz
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3076

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Nicole Josette Romosz, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 3, 2010

Filed: May 7, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Nicole Romosz directly appeals after she was sentenced in the district court1

upon her unconditional guilty plea to sexual contact with a ward. After considering

the statutory sentencing factors as applied to Romosz’s particular circumstances--

including her family responsibilities and history of depression, the likelihood she

would lose her nursing license, and the “significant punishment” of having to register

as a sex offender--the court sentenced Romosz to three years of probation and 60

Appellate Case: 09-3076 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/07/2010 Entry ID: 3662400
-2-

hours of community service. Counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Romosz should not

have been convicted, or should have been allowed to plead guilty to a lesser offense

that did not require registration as a sex offender.

We hold that counsel’s arguments, which are nonjurisdictional and essentially

challenge the prosecution of the case, are foreclosed by Romosz’s unconditional guilty

plea. See United States v. Jennings, 12 F.3d 836, 839 (8th Cir. 1994) (unconditional

guilty plea waived all nonjurisdictional challenges to prosecution of case). We further

hold that the district court did not commit any procedural error or abuse its discretion

by imposing an unreasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

(2007) (assuming sentencing decision is procedurally sound, appellate court considers

substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard); United

States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009) (sentence was not unreasonable

where record reflected that district court made individualized assessment based on

facts presented and specifically addressed defendant’s proffered information in its

consideration of sentencing factors), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1309 (2010); United

States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (holding that

reviewing court first ensures that district court committed no significant procedural

error, then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence; describing factors

demonstrating procedural error).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district

court’s judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3076 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/07/2010 Entry ID: 3662400