Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06330/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06330-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher Nero
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FI LED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

Uoited States Court of Appeals 

Tench Cfro.1it 

OCT 111990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v . 

CHRISTOPHER NERO, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-6330 

(D.C. No. CR-89-105-T) 

(Western District of 

Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR and BRORBY, 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 case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Christopher Nero pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to 

distribute heroin in violation of 21 u.s.c. § 846. The district 

court sentenced him to 108 months' imprisonment, plus three years 

of supervised release. This sentence comports with Section 2Dl.l 

* 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: 89-6330 Document: 010110059598 Date Filed: 10/11/1990 Page: 1 
t 

of the Sentencing Guidelines of the United States Sentencing Commission, promulgated under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. 

Mr. Nero's counsel filed an appeal under the authority of 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that, because 

Mr. Nero had no prior criminal convictions, application of the 

Sentencing Guidelines in this case violated the eighth amendment 

prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Counsel stated 

her belief that the appeal was frivolous, and moved for permission 

to withdraw. Permission was granted. 

Mr. Nero then filed a prose brief, arguing that the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 violates the Due Process clause of the 

fifth amendment by transferring sentencing authority from judges 

to prosecutors. Mr. Nero also requested oral argument and the 

appointment of new counsel. 

We have considered the arguments in the Anders brief and Mr. 

Nero's prose brief. We find no legal merit in any of the arguments advanced. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

Mr. Nero's prose motions for oral argument and appointment 

of new counsel are DENIED. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-6330 Document: 010110059598 Date Filed: 10/11/1990 Page: 2