Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03821/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03821-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas Joel Maggard
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 06-3821/3824

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeals from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Thomas Joel Maggard, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 5, 2007 

Filed: October 12, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Maggard (Maggard) appeals the concurrent sentences the district court1

imposed after he pled guilty to two counts of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 2113(a). Maggard’s counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting the concurrent 96-month prison sentences

are unreasonable in light of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and the district court abused its

discretion in requiring alcohol abstention and successful participation in approved

counseling as special conditions of supervised release.

Appellate Case: 06-3821 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/12/2007 Entry ID: 3361374
-2-

We conclude Maggard’s prison sentences are not unreasonable: they were

within the undisputed Guidelines range of 77-96 months, and were imposed following

the district court’s proper consideration of relevant section 3553(a) factors. See Rita

v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-68 (2007) (allowing appellate presumption of

reasonableness); United States v. Denton, 434 F.3d 1104, 1113 (8th Cir. 2006)

(holding a within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable); United States v.

Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005) (discussing appropriate consideration of

§ 3553(a) factors). After reviewing the unobjected-to special conditions of supervised

release for plain error, see United States v. Morey, 120 F.3d 142, 143 (8th Cir. 1997)

(per curiam) (standard of review), we further conclude the conditions are supported

by the record and reasonably related to the statutory factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)

(stating conditions of release must reasonably be related to factors in § 3553(a)(1),

(a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), and (a)(2)(D)), see United States v. Cooper, 171 F.3d 582, 586-87

(8th Cir. 1999) (upholding the prohibition of the consumption of alcohol and the

requirement that defendant obtain substance-abuse and mental-health counseling,

where there was some evidence of alcohol and drug abuse and defendant had a history

of mental instability). After reviewing the record independently under Penson v.

Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues.

We grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3821 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/12/2007 Entry ID: 3361374