Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03313/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03313-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Roy L. Wood
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. 04-3313

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Roy L. Wood, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 31, 2005

Filed: December 6, 2005

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Roy Wood pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to

distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Viewing the Guidelines

as mandatory and calculating a Guidelines imprisonment range of 78 to 97 months,

the district court1

 discussed Wood’s recent violent criminal conduct and his personal

characteristics, noted the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and then imposed a prison term

of 97 months. On appeal, Wood’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning the court’s decision to

Appellate Case: 04-3313 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/06/2005 Entry ID: 1982510
-2-

sentence Wood at the top of the range. Wood moves for appointment of new counsel,

and argues in his pro se brief that the government breached the implicit terms of the

plea agreement by not recommending a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines

range, and that venue was improper because he did not commit any crimes in

Nebraska. 

We reject Wood’s pro se arguments. His first contention is contrary to the plea

agreement’s express statement that no other promises or agreements existed outside

the document. Both contentions are contrary to Wood’s sworn testimony at the plea

hearing. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977) (“Solemn declarations in

open court carry a strong presumption of verity.”).

As to the issue raised in the Anders brief, under the mandatory Guidelines

scheme before United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), the district court’s

decision to sentence at the top of the applicable Guidelines range was unreviewable,

see United States v. Woodrum, 959 F.2d 100, 101 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). While

we now know that it was error to sentence Wood under mandatory Guidelines, the

error was not preserved, and the district court gave no indication it would have

imposed a lower sentence under advisory Guidelines; moreover, we conclude that the

sentence was not unreasonable in light of the court’s consideration of appropriate

factors. See Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 756-57; United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 550,

552 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (preservation of Booker error; plain-error standard of

review), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 266 (2005); United States v. Maury, 138 Fed. Appx.

875, 876 (8th Cir. 2005) (unpublished per curiam).

Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we

find no other nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw, deny Wood’s motion to appoint new counsel, and affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3313 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/06/2005 Entry ID: 1982510