Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-08-02535/USCOURTS-ca8-08-02535-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Tramain M. Whiting
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-2535

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Tramain M. Whiting, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 7, 2010

Filed: May 11, 2010

___________

Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Tramain Whiting appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1

 following

our remand for consideration of retroactive Guidelines amendments relating to crack

cocaine. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 368 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court erred in not reducing

Whiting’s base offense level by the same 3 levels that the court reduced it during the

original sentencing under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(3) (2006) (providing for varying

Appellate Case: 08-2535 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2010 Entry ID: 3663332
-2-

reductions if defendant has base offense level of 32, 34, 36, or 38, and receives

mitigating role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2). 

We review the district court’s Guidelines calculations de novo. See United

States v. Yah, 500 F.3d 698, 702 (8th Cir. 2007). On remand, the district court

applied Amendment 715, which became effective on May 1, 2008. Under that

amendment, Whiting’s offense level--based on a marijuana equivalency for the crack

cocaine, powder cocaine, and marijuana attributed to him--was reduced from level 34

to level 32. See U.S.S.G. App. C Supp., Amend. 715. Because the recalculated

offense level was 32, the district court calculated a 2-level rather than 3-level

reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(3) (if defendant is entitled to § 3B1.2 reduction,

reduce base offense level of 32 by 2 levels, base offense level of 34 or 36 by 3 levels,

and base offense level of 38 by 4 levels). We find no error in the district court’s

Guidelines calculations. 

Further, after reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we

affirm the amended judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw, subject to counsel informing appellant about procedures for seeking

rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 08-2535 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2010 Entry ID: 3663332