Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03407/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03407-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Franklin Howard Rorebeck
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3407

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Franklin Howard Rorebeck, also known * District of Nebraska.

as Frank White, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: July 6, 2006

 Filed: July 10, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Franklin H. Rorebeck pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess

with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846.

The district court1

 sentenced him to 210 months in prison and 5 years of supervised

release. On appeal, in a brief filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), counsel challenges the district court’s denial of a downward departure from

the advisory Guidelines range based on Rorebeck’s overstated criminal history. The

Appellate Case: 05-3407 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/10/2006 Entry ID: 2065452
-2-

district court’s decision is unreviewable because the court acknowledged its authority

to depart, and nothing in the record indicates the court’s refusal was based upon an

unconstitutional motive. See United States v. Morell, 429 F.3d 1161, 1164 (8th Cir.

2005) (following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), district court’s

discretionary decision not to depart downward is still not reviewable under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3742); United States v. Dabney, 367 F.3d 1040, 1044 (8th Cir. 2004) (district

court’s refusal to grant downward departure is generally unreviewable on appeal,

unless district court had unconstitutional motive or erroneously believed it was

without authority to grant departure). 

Having independently reviewed the entire record in accordance with Penson v.

Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and finding no nonfrivolous issues, we affirm the judgment

of the district court. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

_____________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3407 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/10/2006 Entry ID: 2065452