Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02377/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02377-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Anthony R. West
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2377

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Anthony R. West, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 7, 2005

Filed: December 16, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Federal prisoner Anthony West appeals the judgment of the district court1

entered upon a motion by the government to reduce West’s sentence under Federal

Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 based on his substantial assistance. The court reduced

West’s sentence from 120 months to 90 months in prison.

West argues that the Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) committed

prosecutorial misconduct in connection with the Rule 35 motion by alleging that West

Appellate Case: 04-2377 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/16/2005 Entry ID: 1986708
-2-

had provided certain assistance, a disclosure that tarnished his reputation and

threatened the lives of West and his family. We find that West has not shown any

error, plain or otherwise, in the prosecutor’s actions in connection with the Rule 35

resentencing. The AUSA recounted West’s cooperation in order for West to receive

a downward departure, not to put him in any danger, and West agreed at the

resentencing hearing that he had provided the cooperation attributed to him. See

United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-35 (1993) (plain error standard).

West’s remaining claims are not properly before us, as they involve ineffective

assistance of counsel--a matter for proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255--or they relate

to his original sentence and either were or could have been raised in his prior appeal.

See United States v. Stuckey, 255 F.3d 528, 530-31 (8th Cir.) (“law of the case”

doctrine governs issues decided in prior appeal), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1011 (2001);

United States v. Kress, 58 F.3d 370, 373 (8th Cir. 1995) (where party could have

raised issue in prior appeal but did not, court later hearing same case need not consider

matter). West’s section 2255 motion is not the subject of this appeal.

The judgment is affirmed, and the motion to correct plain error is denied.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2377 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/16/2005 Entry ID: 1986708