Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01903/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01903-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Chandler
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1903

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Northern

* District of Iowa.

William Chandler, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 3, 2007

Filed: August 14, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

William Chandler appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed upon his

guilty plea to manufacturing and distributing 50 grams or more of methamphetamine,

and to conspiring to distribute 50 grams of more of methamphetamine, having been

previously convicted of a felony drug offense, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

(b)(1)(B), and 846. Chandler was sentenced to serve concurrent prison terms of 126

months in prison on each count. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a

Appellate Case: 06-1903 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/14/2007 Entry ID: 3340940
-2-

brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court

should have granted Chandler an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction and sentenced

him to the statutory minimum of 120 months in prison. In his pro se brief, Chandler

argues that he was not guilty of distribution, and that being convicted of both the

conspiracy and the substantive offense violates double jeopardy. We reject these

arguments, and affirm.

We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in denying an acceptanceof-responsibility reduction: after pleading guilty Chandler absconded for 7 months,

resulting in cancellation of his sentencing hearing, and he was later arrested on a

methamphetamine-related drug charge; he did not clearly accept personal

responsibility for his obstructive conduct; and he was unavailable to assist in

prosecuting his codefendant. See United States v. Nguyen, 339 F.3d 688, 689-92 (8th

Cir. 2003) (standard of review; district court did not err in refusing to grant reduction

where one month before trial defendant absconded for 15 months, did not voluntarily

turn himself in, and did not clearly accept responsibility for obstructive conduct);

United States v. Honken, 184 F.3d 961, 968-69 (8th Cir. 1999) (in determining

whether acceptance-of-responsibility reduction is warranted where defendant has

obstructed justice, district court should consider timing and nature of obstructive

conduct; degree of acceptance of responsibility; whether obstruction of justice was

isolated and early incident; whether defendant voluntarily terminated obstructive

conduct; whether defendant admitted and recanted obstructive conduct; and whether

defendant assisted in investigation of his and others’ offenses). 

As to counsel’s argument that Chandler should have received a sentence of 120

months, which we construe as an attack on the reasonableness of the sentence, nothing

in the record suggests that Chandler’s within-Guidelines sentence is unreasonable.

See United States v. Icaza, Nos. 06-2882, 06-2883, 06-3003, 2007 WL 1976087 at *3

(8th Cir. July 10, 2007) (sentence within properly calculated Guidelines range is

presumptively reasonable).

Appellate Case: 06-1903 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/14/2007 Entry ID: 3340940
-3-

Finally, Chandler’s guilty plea forecloses his contention that he is not guilty of

the distribution conviction, see United States v. Staples, 435 F.3d 860, 864 (8th Cir.

2006) (valid guilty plea operates as waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects or errors),

cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 148 (2006), and his convictions for manufacturing and

distributing methamphetamine and conspiracy to commit that crime do not violate

double jeopardy, see United States v. Felix, 503 U.S. 378, 389 (1992) (substantive

crime and conspiracy to commit that crime are not same offense for double jeopardy

purposes). 

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

80 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion

to withdraw, and we affirm. We direct counsel to inform Chandler about the

procedures for filing a petition for rehearing and for certiorari. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1903 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/14/2007 Entry ID: 3340940