Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03310/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03310-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Vincent A. Caulfield
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3310

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Vincent A. Caulfield, * 

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 21, 2010

Filed: April 26, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Vincent Caulfield pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and to being subject to forfeiture of firearms. The

district court1

 sentenced him within the applicable advisory Guidelines range to 57

months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has filed

a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he requests leave

to withdraw and argues that the court should have imposed a shorter sentence, and

Appellate Case: 09-3310 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/26/2010 Entry ID: 3658216
-2-

should have ordered that the sentence run concurrently with the sentence the court

imposed in a separate case involving Caulfield’s violation of supervised release terms.

We conclude that the district court committed no procedural or substantive error

in sentencing Caulfield. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.

2009) (en banc) (standards for reviewing sentence). In particular, we conclude that

it was not unreasonable for the district court to order that the sentence imposed in the

instant case was to run consecutively to the sentence imposed in the case involving his

supervised release. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3, comment. (n.4) (it is Commission’s

recommendation that any sentence of imprisonment for criminal offense that is

imposed after revocation of supervised release be run consecutively to any term of

imprisonment imposed upon revocation); see also United States v. Lee, 545 F.3d 678,

680 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (with limited exception, district court’s decision to

impose consecutive or concurrent sentence is reviewed only for reasonableness), cert.

denied, 129 S. Ct. 2758 (2009).

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

80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm

the district court’s judgment, and we grant counsel’s request to withdraw. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3310 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/26/2010 Entry ID: 3658216