Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-04068/USCOURTS-ca8-03-04068-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rico J. Maury
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-4068 

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Northern

Rico J. Maury, * District of Iowa.

*

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: July 22, 2004

Filed: July 12, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, LAY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Rico J. Maury was convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine

base, and the district court*

 sentenced him to a term of 87 months’ imprisonment. His

counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing

that the district court abused its discretion by sentencing Maury at the top of the

applicable sentencing guideline range of 70 to 87 months. Under the mandatory

guideline regime that prevailed prior to United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738

Appellate Case: 03-4068 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2005 Entry ID: 1926779 
-2-

(2005), a decision by the district court to sentence at the top of the range was

unreviewable. See United States v. Woodrum, 959 F.2d 100, 101 (8th Cir. 1992) (per

curiam).

Although Maury raised no objection in the district court based on the Sixth

Amendment or the application of mandatory sentencing guidelines, we have also

considered the record in light of Booker. Reviewing the sentence under the plain

error standard, see United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549-50 (8th Cir. 2005) (en

banc), we conclude that the record does not establish a “reasonable probability” that

Maury would have received a more favorable sentence under the advisory guideline

scheme announced in Booker. See Pirani, 406 F.3d at 553. The district court

sentenced Maury at the top of the applicable guideline range, and we see nothing in

the record to indicate that the court would have imposed a more favorable sentence

if it had known that the guidelines were merely advisory. We also conclude that the

sentence, which was within the advisory guideline range, was not unreasonable,

particularly in light of Maury’s extensive criminal history. See United States v.

McCully, 407 F.3d 931, 934 (8th Cir. 2005).

Upon reviewing the record of the district court in accordance with Penson v.

Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no other nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, contingent on counsel’s compliance with

Part V of this court’s Amended Criminal Justice Act Plan. Maury’s motion for

supplemental briefing is denied.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-4068 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2005 Entry ID: 1926779