Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03378/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03378-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Willie L. Pittman
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable Dean Whipple, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3378

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Willie L. Pittman, * Western District of Missouri.

*

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: October 4, 2005 

Filed: October 10, 2005

___________

Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Willie Pittman pleaded guilty to possessing five or more grams of a mixture

containing cocaine base with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). Prior to the entry of Mr. Pittman’s guilty plea, the

government filed an information under 21 U.S.C. § 851 notifying the district court1

that Mr. Pittman was subject to increased penalties. The district court thereafter

imposed the mandatory minimum sentence dictated by the admitted-to drug quantity

and Mr. Pittman’s prior felony drug-trafficking conviction – 120 months'

Appellate Case: 04-3378 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/10/2005 Entry ID: 1961213
-2-

imprisonment and 8 years' supervised release. On appeal, Mr. Pittman’s counsel,

filing a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), has moved to

withdraw. For reversal, he raises one issue: that the government should not have

been permitted to file its section 851 information.

Counsel’s argument fails: the government properly filed its information, and

the prior conviction increased the sentence under section 841(b)(1)(B) to a minimum

of 10 years. We also find no error under Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531

(2004), or United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), as Mr. Pittman’s sentence

was mandated by statute. See United States v. Alvarado-Rivera, 412 F.3d 942, 946

n.3 (8th Cir. 2005) (defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights not violated where

defendant admitted responsibility for drug quantity); United States v. Bolanos,

409 F.3d 1045, 1049 (8th Cir. 2005) (no Blakely error where sentence was based on

statutory mandatory minimum rather than use of Guidelines); United States v.

Thomas, 398 F.3d 1058, 1064 (8th Cir. 2005) (prior felony conviction used to

increase statutory minimum penalties does not implicate Blakely).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we have found no other nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the

sentence and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3378 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/10/2005 Entry ID: 1961213