Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03287/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03287-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jimmie J. Caldwell
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3287

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Jimmie J. Caldwell, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 17, 2006

Filed: August 22, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jimmie J. Caldwell (Caldwell) pled guilty to three counts of distributing 5

grams or more of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B).

The district court1

 imposed concurrent sentences of 188 months’ imprisonment and

8 years’ supervised release. On appeal, Caldwell’s counsel moved to withdraw, and

filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing: (1) the district

court erred in enhancing Caldwell’s sentence under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2 for recklessly

Appellate Case: 05-3287 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/22/2006 Entry ID: 2080823
-2-

creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person; and (2)

the court imposed an unreasonable sentence. We reject each argument and affirm.

The testimony at Caldwell’s sentencing hearing showed, in the course of fleeing

from law enforcement officers to evade his arrest on the instant offense, Caldwell was

speeding in his car and driving erratically on a congested highway. We conclude the

district court did not clearly err in applying the section 3C1.2 enhancement. See

United States v. St. James, 415 F.3d 800, 806 (8th Cir. 2005) (finding section 3C1.2

enhancement was not clearly erroneous where evidence showed defendant drove car

erratically at high speeds on congested streets, thereby placing both law enforcement

personnel and public in danger).

Additionally, Caldwell’s sentence was not unreasonable or an abuse of

discretion. The district court took the advisory Guidelines range into account–along

with other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and Caldwell’s arguments for a

variance–in sentencing Caldwell within the Guidelines range. Nothing in the record

indicates the court failed to consider a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an

improper or irrelevant factor, or made a plain error of judgment. See United States

v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 260-61 (2005) (stating section 3553(a) will guide appellate

courts in determining whether sentence is unreasonable); United States v. Lincoln,

413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (explaining a sentence within applicable Guidelines

range is presumptively reasonable and burden is on defendant to rebut that

presumption), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d

997, 1003-04 (8th Cir.) (standard of review; defining abuse of discretion), cert.

denied, 126 S. Ct. 276 (2005).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we find no other nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, we affirm, and grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3287 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/22/2006 Entry ID: 2080823