Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04116/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04116-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher Warren George
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4116

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Christopher Warren George, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 25, 2007

Filed: January 31, 2007 

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Warren George appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed

after he pleaded guilty to bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). His

counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in

which he seeks leave to withdraw, and argues that the district court improperly applied

a reckless-endangerment enhancement and erred in not compelling the government

to move for a substantial-assistance reduction. We reject these arguments.

Appellate Case: 05-4116 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/31/2007 Entry ID: 3273397
-2-

Based on testimony at sentencing, the district court found that George had been

the driver of a speeding vehicle which nearly struck an officer following the instant

offense. We conclude that the court did not clearly err in applying the U.S.S.G.

§ 3C1.2 enhancement. See United States v. Pierce, 388 F.3d 1136, 1138 (8th Cir.

2004) (per curiam) (no clear error in applying § 3C1.2 enhancement where defendant

rammed police officer’s vehicle with his truck and then collided with parked cars);

United States v. Sample, 213 F.3d 1029, 1034 (8th Cir. 2000) (credibility

determinations are virtually unreviewable on appeal). Counsel’s other argument is

also unavailing. See United States v. Romsey, 975 F.2d 556, 557-58 (8th Cir. 1992)

(denial of defendant’s substantial-assistance downward-departure motion was not

error where government did not make motion, even though government did not

present its reasons, because plea agreement preserved government’s discretion

whether to make such motion and defendant made no threshold showing of

constitutionally impermissible motive).

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. We grant counsel leave to withdraw, subject to counsel advising

the defendant of his rights to file a petition for writ of certiorari.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4116 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/31/2007 Entry ID: 3273397