Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02578/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02578-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tyrone Davis
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2578

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Tyrone Davis, also known as T-Row, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 27, 2006

Filed: November 30, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Tyrone Davis (Davis) pled guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with

intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base mixture (crack) in violation of

21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A)(iii). Over Davis’s objection, the district

court1

 calculated a Category VI criminal history based on 15 criminal history points,

which included 3 points for a sentence imposed following a court-martial proceeding

that found Davis guilty of various military criminal charges. The district court

sentenced Davis to 292 months’ imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised release. On

Appellate Case: 05-2578 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/30/2006 Entry ID: 2114063
-2-

appeal, Davis’s counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel in his Anders brief and Davis in a pro se

supplemental brief argue the district court erred by assigning the disputed criminal

history points because the sentences were misdemeanors and were not sufficiently

long to warrant the assignment of 3 criminal history points. Counsel also argues the

court should have applied the rule of lenity at sentencing, and Davis contends he

should have been sentenced for cocaine as opposed to crack. By separate motion,

Davis requests the appointment of new counsel. We affirm.

“We review de novo the district court’s application of the guidelines and review

for clear error its underlying findings of fact.” United States v. Scott, 448 F.3d 1040,

1043 (8th Cir. 2006). After the court-martial proceedings, the military court sentenced

Davis to four consecutive sentences of 12 months’ imprisonment. By asssessing 3

criminal history points for Davis’s military convictions, the district court properly

calculated Davis’s criminal history points because the four consecutive sentences were

imposed in related cases. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2) (prior sentences imposed in

related cases must be treated as one sentence for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(a)); id.

cmt. n.3 (prior sentences resulting from offenses that were consolidated for trial and

sentencing are related).

The remaining arguments also fail. Davis did not object to the recommendation

in the presentence report that he should be held responsible for 1.5 kilograms of

cocaine base for a base offense level of 38, see United States v. Beatty, 9 F.3d 686,

690 (8th Cir. 1993), and the rule of lenity does not apply because Davis’s sentence

was not based on any ambiguous Guidelines provision, see United States v. Oetken,

241 F.3d 1057, 1060 (8th Cir. 2001). Further, having reviewed the record

independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no other

nonfrivolous issue. 

Appellate Case: 05-2578 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/30/2006 Entry ID: 2114063
-3-

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

to withdraw, and deny Davis’s request for new counsel.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2578 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/30/2006 Entry ID: 2114063