Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02954/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02954-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Daniel Wire
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2954

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Daniel Wire, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 11, 2010

Filed: February 17, 2010

___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Daniel Wire pleaded guilty to using the identification documents of a deceased

person to falsely apply for a passport, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) (2006)

(Count 1), and to making a false statement in applying for the passport, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 1542 (2006) (Count 2). The District Court1

 sentenced Wire to 15

months in prison on Count 2, a statutorily required consecutive sentence of 2 years in

prison on Count 1, and concurrent supervised-release terms of 1 year and 3 years. On

appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.

Appellate Case: 09-2954 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/17/2010 Entry ID: 3634719
-2-

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the 15-month sentence on Count 2 was

greater than necessary to comply sufficiently with the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

(2006), and therefore was an abuse of discretion. Wire has not filed a pro se

supplemental brief.

The District Court did not abuse its discretion: the 15-month sentence was

imposed at the lowest point in the undisputed Guidelines range, and we see no basis

upon which Wire could rebut the resulting presumption of reasonableness. See United

States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); United States v.

Sicaros-Quintero, 557 F.3d 579, 583 (8th Cir. 2009). Further, having reviewed the

record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues.

Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

_________________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2954 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/17/2010 Entry ID: 3634719