Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02815/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02815-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Marcus J. Ware
Appellant

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

___________

No. 05-2815

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Marcus J. Ware, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 6, 2006

 Filed: October 11, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Marcus Ware appeals the 57-month prison sentence the district court imposed

after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18

U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2).1

 His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a

brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Ware should have

been sentenced at or below the bottom of the Guidelines range.

Appellate Case: 05-2815 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/11/2006 Entry ID: 2097999
-2-

We conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable. In sentencing Ware within

the undisputed Guidelines range of 46-57 months, the district court properly

considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, specifically noting Ware’s significant

criminal history and the need to protect society and serve the ends of justice; and

nothing in the record rebuts the presumption that the sentence is reasonable. See

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 260-64 (2005) (appellate courts must review

sentences for unreasonableness; sentencing courts must take into account Guidelines

and other §3553(a) factors ); United States v. Tobacco, 428 F.3d 1148, 1151 (8th Cir.

2005) (presumptively reasonable sentence can be unreasonable if district court failed

to consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gave

significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or considered only appropriate

factors but committed clear error of judgment in weighing them); United States v.

Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (sentence within applicable Guidelines range

is presumptively reasonable, and defendant bears burden to rebut that presumption),

cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005). 

Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we

find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment and

grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2815 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/11/2006 Entry ID: 2097999