Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02174/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02174-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Don C. Brown
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2174

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Don C. Brown, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 7, 2008

Filed: May 8, 2008

___________

Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Don C. Brown pleaded guilty to three counts of distributing a mixture or

substance containing cocaine base (crack), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and

(b)(1). At sentencing, the district court1

 imposed a 46-month prison sentence to run

consecutively to an undischarged prison sentence imposed in another case for

violating supervised release. Brown’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a

brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court

erred in making the sentence consecutive to the supervised-release revocation

Appellate Case: 07-2174 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/08/2008 Entry ID: 3432148
-2-

sentence. In a supplemental brief, Brown adds that his sentence is greater than

necessary to satisfy the statutory sentencing goals.

We conclude that the sentence, at the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range,

is not unreasonable. See United States v. Harris, 493 F.3d 928, 932 (8th Cir. 2007)

(sentence within advisory Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable), cert. denied,

128 S. Ct. 1263 (2008); United States v. Winston, 456 F.3d 861, 867 (8th Cir. 2006)

(reviewing district court’s decision to impose consecutive sentence for

reasonableness); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th Cir. 2005) (this

court reviews sentence to determine whether district court abused discretion by

imposing unreasonable sentence; describing factors used to review sentence for

reasonableness); see also U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c) & comment. (n.3(C)) (addressing

sentencing when defendant commits instant offense while on supervised release for

another offense).

Finally, after reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel

leave to withdraw, and we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-2174 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/08/2008 Entry ID: 3432148