Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01279/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01279-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin Michael Dieatrick
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1279

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Kevin Michael Dieatrick, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 7, 2006

Filed: July 12, 2006 

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kevin Michael Dieatrick (Dieatrick) pled guilty in the district court1

 to the use

of a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual

depiction of such conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). Dieatrick was facing

a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison. Before sentencing, however,

the government filed a substantial-assistance downward-departure motion under 18

U.S.C. § 3553(e) and U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and recommended a sentence of 96 months

Appellate Case: 05-1279 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2006 Entry ID: 2066551
-2-

in prison. The court ultimately sentenced Dieatrick to 72 months in prison and 3 years

of supervised release.

On appeal, Dieatrick’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the court “unreasonably denied a

departure beyond 70 months” because (1) the victim and her mother requested

leniency, (2) Dieatrick’s cooperation with the government led to the prosecution of

others involved in the offense, (3) Dieatrick served 26 months of “hard time” pending

sentencing, and (4) Dieatrick was not a distributor of pornography. In his pro se

document which we construe as a pro se supplemental brief, Dieatrick asserts the

district court should not have sentenced him before verifying he had personally read

the presentence investigation report (PSR). See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(1)(A).

Additionally, Dieatrick notes a sentencing conference had taken place in the judge’s

chambers, and argues the government engaged in prosecutorial misconduct during this

conference by presenting an inflated view of the sentencing possibilities for the other

defendants involved in the case. Dieatrick asserts the court relied on this

misinformation in formulating a “fair and just” sentence.

Although we cannot review the overall extent of the district court’s departure,

we will review Dieatrick’s sentence for reasonableness. See United States v. Booker,

543 U.S. 220, 261-62 (2005) (holding appellate courts review sentences for

reasonableness, and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) guides appellate courts in determining

whether sentence is reasonable); United States v. Berni, 439 F.3d 990, 992 (8th Cir.

2006) (per curiam) (holding challenge to extent of downward departure remains

unreviewable post-Booker, and fact that advisory Guidelines determination involves

section 5K1.1 departure does not shield overall sentence from review for

reasonableness), cert. denied, (U.S. June 26, 2006) (No. 05-11240).

We hold Dieatrick’s sentence, including a 48-month downward departure from

the initial advisory guidelines range calculation, was reasonable. The district court

Appellate Case: 05-1279 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2006 Entry ID: 2066551
-3-

considered the particular circumstances of Dieatrick’s offense, Dieatrick’s extensive

cooperation with the government, and his criminal history. We hold all of these

factors were relevant under section 3553(a), and there is no indication the district

court based the sentence on any improper or irrelevant factor. See United States v.

Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (holding district court must not base sentence

on irrelevant or improper factor, and must not neglect relevant factors), cert. denied,

126 S. Ct. 840 (2005); United States v. Saenz, 428 F.3d 1159, 1164-65 (8th Cir. 2005)

(holding there is range of reasonableness available to district court in any given case).

Turning to Dieatrick’s pro se argument the district court improperly sentenced

him without first verifying he personally had read the PSR, we note the record

establishes counsel’s verification the entire PSR was read to Dieatrick and Dieatrick

did not dispute that fact or request a continuance. We therefore hold Dieatrick’s

argument is without merit because he cannot show he was harmed. See Fed. R. Crim.

P. 52(a) (stating error that does not affect substantial rights is disregarded); United

States v. Prado, 204 F.3d 843, 845 (8th Cir. 2000) (finding any error was waived and

was harmless where defendant did not seek additional time to review PSR and had

made specific objections to PSR). Additionally, there is no indication of any

prosecutorial misconduct. Assuming arguendo the prosecutor’s statements in the

judge’s chambers were improper, there is no indication the court considered these

statements at sentencing so as to deprive Dieatrick of a fair proceeding. See United

States v. Milk, 447 F.3d 593, 602 (2006) (addressing claim of prosecutorial

misconduct).

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

(1988), we have found no other nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1279 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/12/2006 Entry ID: 2066551