Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04177/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04177-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Zaccheus Scott Hale
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-4177

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Zaccheus Scott Hale, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 7, 2005

Filed: November 17, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Zaccheus Scott Hale pled guilty to conspiring to distribute more than fifty

grams of actual methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. After granting

the government’s substantial-assistance downward-departure motion under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(e) and U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, the district court1

 departed from a statutory

minimum of life imprisonment to a sentence of 300 months in prison and ten years

of supervised release. On appeal, Hale’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed

Appellate Case: 04-4177 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/17/2005 Entry ID: 1975778
-2-

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

should have departed even further.

However, as a district court's discretionary decision not to depart downward

is unreviewable, United States v. Frokjer, 415 F.3d 865, 875 (8th Cir. 2005), the

extent of a district court's downward departure is also not reviewable in an appeal by

the defendant. See United States v. Noe, 411 F.3d 878, 885 (8th Cir. 2005), cert.

denied, Schultz v. United States, __ U.S. __, 2005 WL 1669602 (Oct. 3, 2005).

Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw. We deny Hale’s motion for the appointment of new counsel on

appeal.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-4177 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/17/2005 Entry ID: 1975778