Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01237/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01237-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Larry Duane Smith
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

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

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1237

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Larry Duane Smith, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 15, 2005 

Filed: December 8, 2005

___________

Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Larry Smith pleaded guilty to conspiring to manufacture 50 grams or more of

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Because prior drug convictions

subjected Smith to statutory minimum penalties, and the government so notified him,

see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B), 851(a)(1), the district court1

 sentenced Smith to 10

years in prison and 8 years of supervised release. On appeal, Smith’s counsel has

moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

Appellate Case: 05-1237 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2005 Entry ID: 1983514
-2-

noting Smith’s belief that the government should have filed a downward-departure

motion for substantial assistance and he should have received a lesser sentence. 

We conclude that the district court did not err in imposing the statutory

mandatory minimum sentence, and that Smith has not shown the government

improperly refused to file a substantial-assistance motion. See Wade v. United States,

504 U.S. 181, 185-86 (1992) (defendant must show government’s refusal to move for

departure was not rationally related to any legitimate government purpose); United

States v. Chacon, 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003) (district court did not have

authority to depart below statutory minimum where government did not file

substantial-assistance motion and defendant did not qualify for safety-valve relief).

We also conclude that the sentence did not raise issues under United States v. Booker,

125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). See United States v. Thomas, 398 F.3d 1058, 1063-64 (8th Cir.

2005); United States v. Vieth, 397 F.3d 615, 620 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct.

2560 (2005). 

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

(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1237 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/08/2005 Entry ID: 1983514