Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02579/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02579-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States
Appellee
William Roderick Worrels
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2579

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Southern District of Iowa.

*

William Roderick Worrels, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 3, 2008

Filed: April 8, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

William Worrels appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed following his

guilty plea to conspiring to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance

containing cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Worrels was sentenced to

167 months in prison and 7 years of supervised release. Worrels’s counsel has moved

to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

For reversal, in both counsel’s brief and Worrels’s pro se brief, Worrels argues that

the district court erred by believing it could not credit the information provided by

Appellate Case: 07-2579 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2008 Entry ID: 3421291
-2-

Worrels that had not yet resulted in a successful prosecution or investigation in

determining the appropriate substantial-assistance departure reduction from his

advisory Guidelines range.

We disagree with Worrels and conclude that the district court did not have to

consider assistance that was not substantial or that did not result in the investigation

or prosecution of another person in determining the appropriate departure reduction.

See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (upon motion of government, court has authority to impose

sentence below mandatory minimum sentence to reflect defendant’s “substantial

assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person”); United States v.

Stewart, 509 F.3d 450, 453 (8th Cir. 2007) (substantial-assistance reduction is judged

by degree and quality of assistance actually provided, not defendant’s willingness to

do more); see also United States v. Fields, 512 F.3d 1009, 1012 (8th Cir. 2008) (if

assistance is not helpful, defendant may not receive benefit of departure); United

States v. Saenz, 428 F.3d 1159, 1164 (8th Cir. 2005) (same); United States v. Johnson,

241 F.3d 1049, 1055 n.5 (8th Cir. 2001) (additional post-sentencing substantial

assistance can be considered pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) motion). The record

shows that the court properly considered the government’s evaluation of the assistance

rendered and gave appropriate consideration to the other U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 factors.

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to

withdraw.

The judgment is affirmed. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-2579 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2008 Entry ID: 3421291