Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03195/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03195-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Rayvell Vann
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3195

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Rayvell Vann, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 4, 2004

Filed: June 10, 2004

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Rayvell Vann challenges the sentence the district court1

 imposed upon his

guilty plea to conspiring to commit bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and

1344. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

At sentencing, over Vann’s objection, the district court added 3 levels to

Vann’s offense level for being a manager or supervisor of criminal activity involving

Appellate Case: 03-3195 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2004 Entry ID: 1775990 
-2-

5 or more participants. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b). Vann’s total offense level of 18

resulted in a Guidelines imprisonment range of 57-71 months. After granting the

government’s substantial-assistance downward-departure motion, the district court

sentenced Vann to 36 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release, and

ordered him to pay restitution. On appeal Vann argues that the district court

erroneously applied the aggravating-role enhancement.

We conclude that the issue is unreviewable, however, because Vann’s

departure sentence is below the applicable Guidelines range, with or without the

enhancement. See United States v. Baker, 64 F.3d 439, 441 (8th Cir. 1995)

(challenge to enhancement unreviewable where defendant received sentence below

applicable Guidelines range with or without enhancement); United States v. Wyatt,

26 F.3d 863, 864 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (challenge to enhancement

unreviewable where sentence was downward departure from Guidelines range that

would have resulted if defendant had prevailed); United States v. Dutcher, 8 F.3d 11,

12-13 (8th Cir. 1993) (extent of downward departure unreviewable regardless of

district court’s reasons for refraining from departing further; rejecting argument that

allegedly erroneous Guidelines “starting point” caused court to depart insufficiently).

Having found no nonfrivolous issues after reviewing the record independently

under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we affirm. We also grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3195 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/10/2004 Entry ID: 1775990