Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06248/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06248-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
George John Gangloff III
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FILED 

United Stares Court of Appeals 

TfP-th Cfrruir 

JAN 2 ·i 1991 

~OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

No. 89-62 4 8 

(D.C. No. CR-88-137-R) 

(W. D. Okla.) 

GEORGE JOHN GANGLOFF III, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MCWILLIAMS, and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

George John Gangloff, III, was indicted on seven counts 

charging drug offenses. He pled guilty to one count of conspiring 

to distribute approximately one kilo of cocaine in violation of 21 

U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(l)(B)(ii) (1988). The remaining six 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-6248 Document: 010110080365 Date Filed: 01/24/1991 Page: 1 
counts were dismissed. Gangloff was sentenced to fifty-seven 

months pursuant to Guidelines§ 2.D1.1, the middle of the 

applicable guideline range. 

Gangloff is represented by an assistant federal public 

defender on appeal who has filed a brief under the procedures set 

out in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief 

raises two issues: (1) whether Gangloff's sentence violated his 

right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment; and (2) whether 

he was denied effective assistance of counsel. In accordance with 

Anders, Gangloff's counsel stated her belief that, upon review of 

the case in its entirety, the appeal is frivolous, and she 

requests permission to withdraw as counsel. We have fully 

examined all the proceedings, including arguments raised by 

Gangloff prose in a letter dated January 12, 1990, and, as 

discussed briefly below, we have determined the appeal to be 

frivolous. 

Gangloff argues that his sentence is disproportionate in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment because he has no prior criminal 

history. In view of the deference with which we view legislative 

determinations of proper criminal penalties, it is a general rule 

that a sentence within the statutory limits does not constitute 

cruel and unusual punishment. See United States v. Newsome, 898 

F.2d 119, 122 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 s. Ct. 207 (1990). 

The statutory maximum for Gangloff's crime is forty years. We do 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-6248 Document: 010110080365 Date Filed: 01/24/1991 Page: 2 
not view his sentence of fifty-seven months, which is within the 

applicable guideline range, to be disproportionately severe in 

view of the statutory maximum and the amount of cocaine involved. 

While Gangloff refers us to his lack of prior criminal conduct, we 

point out that this circumstance has been considered in 

calculating his guideline range, and that it is a significant 

factor in setting that range only slightly above the statutory 

minimum. 

We likewise reject Gangloff's argument that he was denied his 

constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel in 

connection with his guilty plea. Gangloff's allegations that he 

was coerced by his attorney into pleading guilty, that his 

attorney ignored his defense of entrapment, and that his attorney 

failed to correct inaccuracies in his presentence report are all 

directly and clearly undermined by the record in this case. 

During his plea colloquy, Gangloff stated that his plea was 

voluntary and that he was not coerced, that he fully informed his 

attorney of the facts and circumstances of his case, and that his 

counsel had done all anyone could do to counsel and assist him. 

During the sentencing hearing Gangloff stated that he was 

satisfied with the accuracy of the presentence report. Moreover, 

as the plea colloquy made clear, by voluntarily pleading guilty 

Gangloff waived the non-jurisdictional defenses he seeks to raise 

prose on appeal. See United States v. Davis, 900 F.2d 1524, 

1525-26 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 s. Ct. 155 (1990). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-6248 Document: 010110080365 Date Filed: 01/24/1991 Page: 3 
• 

In sum, we conclude that this appeal is frivolous. 

Accordingly, we AFFIRM. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-6248 Document: 010110080365 Date Filed: 01/24/1991 Page: 4