Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01182/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01182-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Scott Andrew Anderson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-1182

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Scott Andrew Anderson

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of North Dakota - Fargo

____________

 Submitted: June 24, 2015

Filed: June 30, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Scott Anderson directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to federal drug charges,

and the district court sentenced him to 25 years in prison and 10 years of supervised 1

The Honorable Ralph R. Erickson, Chief Judge, Untied States District Court

1

for the District of North Dakota.

Appellate Case: 15-1182 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/30/2015 Entry ID: 4290233 
release. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). For the following reasons, we grant counsel’s

motion and affirm.

For reversal, counsel argues that the government breached its written plea

agreement with Anderson by refusing to move for a downward departure under

U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) atsentencing. We review thisissue, raised

for the first time on appeal, only for plain error, see United States v. Lovelace, 565

F.3d 1080, 1085-87 (8th Cir. 2009), and we conclude that the government did not

breach the agreement, because the agreement plainly vested full discretion in the

government to decide whether substantial assistance had been provided under the

specific terms of the plea agreement, and whether to file a departure motion, see

United States v. Kelly, 18 F.3d 612, 617 (8th Cir. 1994); United States v. Romsey,

975 F.2d 556, 558 (8th Cir. 1992). Counsel draws our attention to United States v.

Anzalone, 148 F.3d 940 (8th Cir. 1998), but that decision is inapposite. In this case,

unlike Anzalone, the government did not concede that its decision to withhold a

substantial-assistance motion was based entirely on factors unrelated to assistance. 

See United States v. Moeller, 383 F.3d 710, 712 (8th Cir. 2004). 

Finally, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. The judgment of the district

court is affirmed. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-1182 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/30/2015 Entry ID: 4290233