Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02766/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02766-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Sharon Lee Walker
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2766

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Sharon Lee Walker, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 31, 2006

Filed: June 13, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Sharon Lee Walker pleaded guilty to conspiring with others to commit

financial-aid fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and committing financial-aid

fraud, in violation of 20 U.S.C. § 1097(a). The district court1

 sentenced Walker to 87

months in prison and 3 years of supervised release, and to pay restitution. On appeal,

counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Walker’s sentence is unreasonable.

Appellate Case: 05-2766 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/13/2006 Entry ID: 2055609
-2-

We conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable, as the district court

sentenced Walker within the advisory Guidelines range and gave appropriate

consideration to the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Booker, 543

U.S. 220, 258-62 (2005) (district courts must consult Guidelines and take them into

account when sentencing, along with other § 3553(a) factors; § 3553(a) factors guide

inquiry as appellate courts review sentences to determine whether they are

reasonable); 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); United States v. Tobacco, 428 F.3d

1148, 1151 (8th Cir. 2005) (presumptively reasonable sentence can be unreasonable

if district court (1) failed to consider relevant factor that should have received

significant weight; (2) gave significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor; or (3)

considered only appropriate factors but in weighing those factors committed clear

error of judgment).

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 grant counsel’s motion

to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2766 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/13/2006 Entry ID: 2055609