Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01045/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01045-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Angelia M. Orth
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1045

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of Nebraska. 

Angelia M. Orth, * 

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 22, 2004

Filed: July 12, 2005 (corrected 7/14/05)

___________

Before MELLOY, LAY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Angelia Orth pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500

or more grams of methamphetamine. Before sentencing, Orth moved for a downward

departure from the otherwise applicable sentencing guideline range pursuant to USSG

§ 5K2.0, arguing that her case fell outside the heartland of methamphetamine cases

because she had voluntarily withdrawn from the conspiracy and stopped using drugs

Appellate Case: 04-1045 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2005 Entry ID: 1926818 
1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

-2-

prior to her conviction. The district court1

 denied Orth’s motion, adopted the

recommendations of the PSR, and sentenced Orth to 70 months’ imprisonment.

In a brief filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Orth’s

counsel has moved to withdraw and argued that the district court erred in denying

Orth’s motion for a downward departure. Although the Supreme Court’s decision in

United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), rendered the guidelines effectively

advisory, the district courts must still determine an advisory guideline sentence, and

this determination includes whether a defendant is entitled to a downward departure.

See United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th Cir. 2005). “When a district

court considers a motion for downward departure and rejects it, that decision is not

reviewable.” United States v. Turechek, 138 F.3d 1226, 1228 (8th Cir. 1998). The

district court here considered Orth’s motion for a downward departure, and

acknowledged that it had the discretion to depart. Therefore, the decision not to

depart from the guidelines is unreviewable.

We have also considered the record in light of Booker. Orth did not object to

the district court’s application of mandatory guidelines or to the court’s consideration

of facts neither admitted by the defendant nor proved to a jury beyond a reasonable

doubt. We thus review her sentence for plain error, United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d

543, 549-50 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc), and we have found nothing in the record to

indicate a “reasonable probability” that Orth would have received a more favorable

sentence if the district court had sentenced her under the advisory regime announced

in Booker.

Although Orth was sentenced at the low end of the guidelines range, that is not

sufficient to demonstrate plain error warranting relief. Pirani, 406 F.3d at 553. In

Appellate Case: 04-1045 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2005 Entry ID: 1926818 
-3-

denying Orth’s motion to depart downward based on her withdrawal from the

conspiracy, the court observed that such a withdrawal was “not terribly unusual,” that

the “harm has been done,” and that the harm caused by Orth’s offense, which

involved 1.47 kilograms of methamphetamine, was “very great.” (S. Tr. at 6). Orth

did benefit already from the safety-valve provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and USSG

§ 5C1.2, which permitted the court to sentence her below the otherwise applicable

mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months. “‘[W]here the effect of the error on the

result in the district court is uncertain or indeterminate – where we would have to

speculate – the appellant has not met [her] burden of showing a reasonable

probability that the result would have been different but for the error.’” Pirani, 406

F.3d at 553 (quoting United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1301 (11th Cir.

2005)).

Upon our independent review under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988),

we find no other nonfrivolous issues. We therefore affirm and grant counsel’s motion

to withdraw on the condition that counsel complies with Part V of our court’s

Amended Criminal Justice Act Plan.

 _____________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1045 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/12/2005 Entry ID: 1926818