Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03283/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03283-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lorenzo Markey Cook
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3283

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Lorenzo Markey Cook, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 10, 2010

Filed: May 13, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Lorenzo Cook pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute at least 5 grams of

cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(B). The district court1

denied his motion for a continuance of sentencing until Congress acted on pending

legislation, and, declining to vary downward, sentenced him at the bottom of the

applicable Guidelines range to 92 months in prison. Cook appeals. His counsel has

moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

1

The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

Appellate Case: 09-3283 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/13/2010 Entry ID: 3664227
arguing that the court abused its discretion in denying a continuance and a variance,

and that the sentence is unreasonable because it is greater than necessary.

We hold that the court committed no procedural error in sentencing Cook,

imposed a substantively reasonable sentence, and did not abuse its discretion in

declining to vary downward. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (in

reviewing sentence, appellate court first ensures that district court committed no

significant procedural error, then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence

under abuse-of-discretion standard; if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate

court may apply presumption of reasonableness); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d

997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005) (describing abuse of discretion). We also find no abuse of

discretion in the denial of a continuance. See United States v. Vesey, 330 F.3d 1070,

1071-72 (8th Cir. 2003) (district courts are afforded broad discretion when ruling on

requests for continuances, which should be granted only when requesting party has

shown compelling reason). 

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

nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and we

affirm.

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 09-3283 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/13/2010 Entry ID: 3664227