Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01404/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01404-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Kevin J. Yale
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1404

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Kevin J. Yale, * 

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 6, 2007

Filed: February 7, 2007

___________

Before COLLOTON, HANSEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kevin J. Yale appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1

 after he

pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500

grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. In a

brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel argues that Yale’s

262-month prison sentence, imposed upon consideration of an advisory Guidelines

range of 262-327 months, is too harsh in comparison to the sentences of his coconspirators.

Appellate Case: 06-1404 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/07/2007 Entry ID: 3276291
-2-

We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s refusal to grant Yale a

downward variance to accomplish sentencing parity, especially where, in opposing the

variance, the government had stated without objection that Yale’s case was

distinguished by an extensive criminal record and the existence of a weapon. See

United States v. Plaza, 471 F.3d 876, 880 (8th Cir. 2006) (while unwarranted

sentencing disparities are to be avoided, district court evaluating potential disparity

must compare defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar

conduct; reversing downward variance where coconspirators had different criminal

history categories, role-related adjustments, drug quantities, and Guidelines ranges).

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment

of the district court, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1404 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/07/2007 Entry ID: 3276291