Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02003/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02003-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Errol Lamar Scott
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2003

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Errol Lamar Scott, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 27, 2007

 Filed: April 2, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, HANSEN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Errol Lamar Scott challenges the 120-month

sentence imposed by the district court1

 following his guilty plea to the offenses of

aiding and abetting bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), and

being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(g)(1). Scott

argues that the district court erred in failing to grant a departure pursuant to U.S.S.G.

§ 4A1.3(b), and that his sentence is unreasonable. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 06-2003 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/02/2007 Entry ID: 3294401
-2-

Having carefully studied the record, we conclude Scott’s claim that the district

court erroneously failed to depart is unreviewable on appeal. See United States v.

Andreano, 417 F.3d 967, 970 (8th Cir. 2005) (discretionary decision not to grant

departure pursuant to § 4A1.3(b) is not reviewable unless record shows court failed

to recognize authority to depart). The court recognized its authority to depart, but

simply did not believe a departure was warranted in this case. We further conclude

that Scott’s 120-month sentence, which is at the low end of his advisory Guidelines

range, is not unreasonable. 

Because the appellant is represented by appointed counsel, we decline to

address the issues attempted to be raised by the appellant in his pro se supplemental

brief. See United States v. Maynie, 257 F.3d 908, 921 n.7 (8th Cir. 2001), cert.

denied, 535 U.S. 944 (2002). 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2003 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/02/2007 Entry ID: 3294401