Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01960/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01960-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Tucker
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1960

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Michael Tucker, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 25, 2006

Filed: April 27, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Michael Tucker appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he pleaded

guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or

more of a methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1),

and 846. In a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel

argues that Tucker’s 70-month prison sentence, imposed upon the district court’s

consideration of an advisory Guidelines imprisonment range of 70-87 months, is

Appellate Case: 05-1960 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/27/2006 Entry ID: 2038105
-2-

unreasonable, and that Tucker should instead have been sentenced to the 60-month

statutory minimum. Tucker, in his pro se submissions, asserts that despite his

cooperation he was sentenced to 70 months of imprisonment, that his sentence was

enhanced based on prior crimes committed over 10 years earlier, and that his counsel

misled him and “scared” him into pleading guilty. He pleads for sentencing leniency.

The sentence imposed comports with the parties’ plea agreement and the

unobjected-to calculations in the presentence report, and Tucker points to nothing in

the record to rebut the presumption that his sentence is reasonable. See United States

v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (sentence within Guidelines range is

presumptively reasonable, and defendant must rebut such presumption), cert. denied,

126 S.Ct. 840 (2005). Further, the district court demonstrated its awareness of the 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and showed leniency by sentencing Tucker at the bottom of

the advisory Guidelines range.

Tucker’s pro se contentions are similarly without merit. First, interpreting

Tucker’s argument as a complaint that the government failed to move for a downward

departure based on his cooperation, we note that the plea agreement preserved the

government’s right to determine in its sole discretion whether any substantialassistance departure motions would be filed based on Tucker’s cooperation, and on

appeal Tucker does not attribute an unconstitutional motive to the government’s

decision not to make the motion in his case. See United States v. Romsey, 975 F.2d

556, 557-558 (8th Cir. 1992). Second, our review of the record indicates that the

district court did not commit plain error (or any error) in calculating Tucker’s criminal

history points, because only sentences imposed within 10 years of the commencement

of the instant offense were counted. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(e)(2) (applicable time

period for computing criminal history); United States v. Caballero, 420 F.3d 819, 823

(8th Cir. 2005) (appellate court may exercise discretion to notice plain error first

raised on appeal), petition for cert. filed, No. 05-8997 (Jan. 30, 2006). 

Appellate Case: 05-1960 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/27/2006 Entry ID: 2038105
-3-

Finally, any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel or an involuntary guilty

plea is not properly before us in this direct criminal appeal. See United States v.

Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003) (ineffective assistance); United States

v. Murphy, 899 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir. 1990) (involuntary plea). After reviewing the

record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no

nonfrivolous issues. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1960 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/27/2006 Entry ID: 2038105