Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02476/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02476-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marcus Mister
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2476

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

Marcus Mister, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 21, 2010

Filed: February 3, 2010

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Marcus Mister pleaded guilty to distributing a mixture or substance containing

cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), (b)(1)(C); and to aiding and abetting

the distribution of 5 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing cocaine base,

in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), (b)(1)(B) & 2. The district court1

 determined

that Mister was a career offender with an advisory Guidelines range of 188-235

months in prison, but sentenced him below the range to concurrent sentences of 144

months in prison and concurrent 3- and 4-year terms of supervised release. Counsel

Appellate Case: 09-2476 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/03/2010 Entry ID: 3630709
-2-

has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), raising the following issues: (1) the sentence is too long; (2) Mister’s two

prior controlled-substance offenses should not have earned criminal history points or

triggered career-offender status, because the court suspended sentence in each case;

and (3) counsel was ineffective.

These arguments are unavailing. The unobjected-to criminal history score is

not erroneous, plainly or otherwise: a conviction for which imposition or execution

of sentence is totally suspended or stayed is counted as a prior sentence under

U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(c), and therefore the prior controlled-substance offenses earned

criminal history points and also triggered career-offender status. See U.S.S.G.

§§ 4A1.2(a)(3), 4B1.1(a)&(b), 4B1.2(c); United States v. Linderman, 587 F.3d 896,

899 (8th Cir. 2009) (plain error review for unobjected-to procedural error).

We also conclude that the sentence is not substantively unreasonable, see

United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2009); and the ineffectiveassistance argument is not properly before us in this direct criminal appeal, see United

States v. McAdory, 501 F.3d 868, 872-73 (8th Cir. 2007). Finally, having reviewed

the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous

issues.

Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2476 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/03/2010 Entry ID: 3630709