Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02252/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02252-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donald Lee Bowers
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. 05-2252

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Donald Lee Bowers, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 31, 2006

Filed: June 2, 2006

___________

Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Donald Bowers pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with

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

felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2).

Having determined that the advisory Sentencing Guidelines imprisonment range was

135-168 months for the drug offense and 120 months (the statutory maximum) for the

firearm offense, the district court1

 imposed concurrent prison terms of 135 months

and 120 months. Bowers appeals, arguing in a brief filed under Anders v. California,

Appellate Case: 05-2252 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/02/2006 Entry ID: 2051531
-2-

386 U.S. 738 (1967), that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion for

downward departure or deviation from the Guidelines range. 

The district court’s decision not to exercise its authority to depart downward

is unreviewable. See United States v. Morell, 429 F.3d 1161, 1164 (8th Cir. 2005)

(district court’s decision not to depart downward is 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 that it was

without authority to grant departure). Further, Bowers has not satisfied his burden

to rebut the presumption that his sentences are reasonable. See United States v.

Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (sentence within applicable Guidelines range

is presumptively reasonable and burden is on defendant to rebut that presumption),

cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th

Cir.) (standard of review), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 276 (2005).

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

(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2252 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/02/2006 Entry ID: 2051531