Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02564/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02564-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shawn D. Memarian
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2564

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Shawn D. Memarian, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 7, 2010

Filed: April 12, 2010

___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Shawn Memarian pleaded guilty to cyberstalking, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 2261A(2)(B)(i). The district court1

 imposed a below-Guidelines-range sentence of

24 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release, and ordered Memarian to pay

$3,550 in restitution to his victim. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and

filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence

and the restitution award, and asserting that trial counsel was ineffective. In pro se

supplemental filings, Memarian also challenges the district court’s imposition of

1

The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

Appellate Case: 09-2564 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/12/2010 Entry ID: 3653713
special conditions of supervised release, prohibiting him from (1) incurring new credit

card charges or opening additional lines of credit without approval by the probation

office, and (2) consuming or possessing alcoholic beverages, or being in an

establishment where alcoholic beverages are the primary items for sale.

Having carefully reviewed the record, we find no abuse of discretion in the

sentence and no indication that the district court overlooked or misapplied any

relevant factor, or gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor. See 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) (sentencing factors); United States v. Austad, 519 F.3d 431, 434-36

(8th Cir. 2008) (appeals court reviews for abuse of discretion, first ensuring that

district court committed no significant procedural error, and then considering

substantive reasonableness of sentence; for sentence outside Guidelines range, due

deference must be given to district court’s decision that § 3553(a) factors justify

extent of variance); see also United States v. Schlosser, 558 F.3d 736, 740-42 (8th Cir.

2009) (pretrial conduct, including conduct while free on bond, is appropriate

consideration under § 3553(a); record showed district court relied on unobjected-to

presentence report and police incident report for conduct underlying bond violations,

not on magistrate judge’s findings of fact during bond revocation hearing).

We find no plain error in the district court’s restitution order, see 18 U.S.C.

§ 2264 (court shall order restitution for § 2261A offense); United States v. Malpeso,

126 F.3d 92, 94-95 (2d Cir. 1997) (relocation expenses), or in its imposition of the

special conditions of supervised release, see U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(d)(2), p.s. (barring debt

accumulation if defendant is subject to restitution); United States v. Kreitinger, 576

F.3d 500, 505-06 (8th Cir. 2009) (unobjected-to statements in presentence report

regarding suspicion of substance abuse were sufficient to justify condition requiring

defendant to participate in substance-abuse program). See United States v. Pirani, 406

F.3d 543, 549 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (errors not properly preserved are reviewed

for plain error only). Finally, Memarian should raise any ineffective-assistance claim

-2-

Appellate Case: 09-2564 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/12/2010 Entry ID: 3653713
in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion rather than in this direct appeal. See United States v.

McAdory, 501 F.3d 868, 872-73 (8th Cir. 2007).

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

80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw, deny Memarian’s motion for appointment of appellate counsel,

and affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

-3-

Appellate Case: 09-2564 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/12/2010 Entry ID: 3653713