Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03061/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03061-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roger Roy Perry
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3061

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Roger Roy Perry, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 10, 2007

Filed: August 16, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Roger Roy Perry pleaded guilty to possessing counterfeit currency, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 472, and conspiring to make and possess counterfeit currency, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 471-472. The district court1

 sentenced him within

the advisory Guidelines range to 51 months in prison and 3 years of supervised

release. Perry challenges that sentence on appeal. His counsel has filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and has moved to withdraw, and Perry has

filed a pro se supplemental brief. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

Appellate Case: 06-3061 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2007 Entry ID: 3342062
-2-

First, the district court’s discretionary denial of Perry’s downward-departure

motion is unreviewable. See United States v. Morell, 429 F.3d 1161, 1164 (8th Cir.

2005). Also, Perry has not overcome the appellate presumption of reasonableness that

attaches to his sentence by showing that the court committed a clear error of judgment

in determining that a within-Guidelines-range sentence was appropriate despite his

poor health. See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2468 (2007); United States

v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th Cir. 2005). Next, the district court was entitled

to engage in judicial fact-finding within an advisory Guidelines system. See United

States v. Fazio, 487 F.3d 646, 657 (8th Cir. 2007). Last, Perry has not made a

substantial threshold showing that the government acted unconstitutionally or in bad

faith by not filing a substantial-assistance downward-departure motion. See United

States v. Marks, 244 F.3d 971, 976 (8th Cir. 2001). After reviewing the record

independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we conclude that there

are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the

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

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3061 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/16/2007 Entry ID: 3342062