Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01879/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01879-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Randy Lynn Zirtzman
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1879

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Northern

* District of Iowa.

Randy Lynn Zirtzman, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 12, 2007

Filed: October 19, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Randy Lynn Zirtzman pleaded guilty to knowingly making his property

available for the purpose of manufacturing, storing, distributing, and using

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856. The district court1

 calculated a

base offense level of 32, see U.S.S.G. §§ 2D1.8(a), 2D1.1(c) (2005); a 6-level increase

because the offense created a substantial risk of harm to Zirtzman’s minor child who

was present in the home while methamphetamine was being manufactured, see

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(6)(C) (2005); a 3-level reduction for accepting responsibility; a

Appellate Case: 06-1879 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2007 Entry ID: 3363767
-2-

Category II criminal history; and a Guidelines imprisonment range of 188-235

months. The court sentenced Zirtzman to 188 months in prison and 3 years of

supervised release.

On appeal, counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), arguing that the district court erred in denying a mitigating-role reduction

under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) (2005), and imposed an unreasonable sentence as a result

of giving undue weight to the advisory Guidelines range. We find no clear error in

the district court’s denial of the reduction because Zirtzman allowed his property to

be used to manufacture methamphetamine, and he obtained precursor chemicals that

were used in the manufacturing process. See United States v. Johnson, 408 F.3d 535,

538-39 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review; mere fact that defendant is less culpable

than others does not entitle him to reduction; defendant was not entitled to reduction

where he was responsible for supplying pseudoephedrine for methamphetaminemanufacturing operation). We also conclude that Zirtzman’s sentence is not

unreasonable: the district court properly took into account the Guidelines

imprisonment range along with other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and Zirtzman’s

arguments in favor of a downward departure and/or variance. See United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 260-62 (2005) (§ 3553(a) will guide appellate courts in

determining whether sentence is unreasonable); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997,

1004 (8th Cir. 2005) (discussing appropriate consideration of § 3553(a) factors); see

also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-68 (2007) (allowing appellate

presumption of reasonableness for sentence within Guidelines range).

Zirtzman asserts in his supplemental pro se brief that his base offense level

should have been lower than 32; he should not have received the 6-level increase; and

the district court should have applied the rule of lenity. We reject the first two

arguments, because at sentencing Zirtzman did not reassert or request a ruling on his

previous objection to the 6-level increase, see United States v. Hester, 140 F.3d 753,

761-62 (8th Cir. 1998) (holding that although defendant submitted various objections

Appellate Case: 06-1879 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2007 Entry ID: 3363767
-3-

to presentence report, because he addressed only one of them during sentencing

hearing and did not ask for ruling on others, those other objections were waived), and

in his plea agreement he stipulated to a base offense level of 32, see United States v.

Early, 77 F.3d 242, 244 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (defendant who stipulated in plea

agreement to certain base offense level cannot challenge imposition of that base level

where defendant did not challenge validity of agreement or seek to withdraw from it).

The rule of lenity has no application here as the sentence was not based on an

ambiguous Guidelines provision. See United States v. Oetken, 241 F.3d 1057, 1060

(8th Cir. 2001).

We have carefully reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the

district court’s judgment. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1879 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/19/2007 Entry ID: 3363767