Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01429/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01429-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arizona Logan
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1429

___________

United States, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Arizona Logan, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 20, 2007

Filed: December 21, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Arizona Logan challenges the 136-month prison sentence the district court1

imposed after he pleaded guilty to committing armed bank robbery and assaulting

bank employees with a dangerous weapon during its commission, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d) (twenty-five-year maximum prison term). At sentencing, the

district court granted the government’s motion for an acceptance-of-responsibility

reduction, determined an advisory Guidelines range of 121-151 months, and – after

stating that it had considered all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and noting Logan’s

Appellate Case: 07-1429 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2007 Entry ID: 3385048
-2-

history of substance abuse – imposed the 136-month prison sentence, 5 years of

supervised release, and mandatory restitution of $23,175, representing the

unrecovered portion of the robbery proceeds. On appeal, Logan’s counsel has filed

a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), requesting permission

to withdraw and suggesting that the government should have moved for a substantialassistance departure in light of information Logan provided regarding the alleged

location of the unrecovered money, even though the information did not lead to

recovery of the money and Logan failed a polygraph examination.

The government’s decision not to file a motion for a downward departure based

on substantial assistance may be challenged only if the defendant makes a substantial

threshold showing of prosecutorial discrimination, irrational conduct, or bad faith.

See United States v. Hardy, 325 F.3d 994, 996 (8th Cir. 2003). We conclude that

Logan has made no such showing. We also conclude that Logan’s prison sentence,

below the statutory maximum and within the applicable advisory Guidelines range,

is presumptively reasonable. See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007);

United States v. Harris, 493 F.3d 928, 932 (8th Cir. 2007). Furthermore, the record

indicates that the district court appropriately considered the factors in section 3553(a),

and nothing in it suggests that the court misapplied those factors. See Harris, 493 F.3d

at 932-33. 

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1429 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2007 Entry ID: 3385048