Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01705/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01705-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Benjamin Davis
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable William R. Wilson, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1705

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Benjamin Davis, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 5, 2007

Filed: December 11, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Benjamin Davis appeals the 262-month sentence the district court1

 imposed

after he pleaded guilty to distributing more than 50 grams of cocaine base, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). In a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), Davis’s counsel seeks to withdraw and questions whether the district court

improperly counted Davis’s 1988 conviction in determining his career-offender status

under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, and whether the sentence is unreasonable. Davis has filed

a supplemental brief also challenging the use of his 1988 conviction. 

Appellate Case: 07-1705 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2007 Entry ID: 3380937
-2-

Upon careful review of the entire record, including counsel’s concession at the

sentencing hearing that the 1988 conviction appeared to be valid, we conclude that the

district court did not plainly err in using the conviction to determine Davis’s careeroffender status. See United States v Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 550 (8th Cir. 2003) (en

banc) (to preserve error for appellate review, objection must be timely and clearly

state grounds for objection; errors not properly preserved are reviewed for plain error);

cf. United States v. Chauncey, 420 F.3d 864, 878 (8th Cir. 2005) (failure to object to

fact of conviction is considered admission of conviction for purposes of determining

career-offender status).

We further conclude that Davis’s sentence--at the bottom of the applicable

Guidelines range--is not unreasonable. We see no indication in the record that the

district court based the sentence on an improper or irrelevant factor, failed to consider

a relevant factor, or made a clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors.

See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2467-68 (2007) (allowing appellate

presumption of reasonableness for sentences within Guidelines range); United States

v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261 (2005) (appellate courts review sentences for

unreasonableness using § 3553(a) as guide); United States v. Harris, 493 F.3d 928,

932 (8th Cir. 2007) (sentence within advisory Guidelines range is presumptively

reasonable); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th Cir. 2005)

(addressing how sentencing court may abuse its discretion). After reviewing the

record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no

nonfrivolous issues. 

Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1705 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/11/2007 Entry ID: 3380937