Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04077/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04077-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Martin
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-4077

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Robert Martin, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 7, 2005

Filed: December 20, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Robert Martin appeals the 120-month sentence the district court1

 imposed after

granting the government’s Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) motion to

reduce Martin’s sentence for his post-sentencing substantial assistance. His counsel

has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), arguing that (1) the government breached its promise to advocate for a

substantial reduction, and (2) the district court erred by focusing on Martin’s criminal

history, as opposed to his assistance, in determining the amount of the departure. In

Appellate Case: 04-4077 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2005 Entry ID: 1987788
-2-

his pro se supplemental brief, Martin raises issues concerning his original sentencing,

and argues further that the government breached its promise to give him 5 years off

his sentence for testifying, that he received a lesser reduction than a defendant who

had provided the same assistance, and that his sentence is unreasonable under United

States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Martin also requests appointment of counsel.

Initially, we note that Martin may not in this appeal raise issues he could have

raised in a direct criminal appeal following his conviction and original sentencing.

See Goff v. United States, 965 F.2d 604, 605 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Further,

Martin’s argument concerning the extent of the departure is unreviewable. See

United States v. Noe, 411 F.3d 878, 885 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 184

(2005); cf. United States v. Williams, 324 F.3d 1049, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003) (per

curiam) (refusal to depart is not reviewable unless defendant makes substantial

showing that court’s decision was based on unconstitutional motive).

As to Martin’s arguments concerning the government’s advocacy at the Rule

35(b) hearing, nothing in the record suggests the government promised to advocate

for any particular sentence at the Rule 35 hearing, or that the government promised

Martin he would receive a 5-year sentence reduction for his assistance. We also find

that the sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738,

765-66 (2005).

Finally, having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant defense counsel’s

motion to withdraw, deny Martin’s request for appointment of counsel, and affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-4077 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2005 Entry ID: 1987788