Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Deshawn Michael MAPP, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-07-11
Citations: 513 F. App'x 630
Docket Number: No. 12-4010
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Deshawn Michael MAPP, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 513
Pages: 630–631

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Deshawn Michael MAPP, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-4010.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: July 5, 2013.
Filed: July 11, 2013.
Craig Peyton Gaumer, Richard D. West-phal, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Deshawn Michael Mapp, Beaumont, TX, pro se.
Eric D. Tindal, Nidey & Peterson, Williamsburg, IA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Deshawn Mapp appeals the 105-month prison sentence that the district court imposed upon remand for resentencing in light of Dorsey v. United States, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2321, 183 L.Ed.2d 250 (2012). Counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that Mapp was not properly classified as a career offender. We do not consider the issue, however, because Mapp did not challenge his career-offender status at his first sentencing hearing or in his first direct appeal. Further, he agreed at the resentenc-ing hearing with the calculation of his sentencing range under the career offender Guideline. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (waiver is intentional relinquishment or abandonment of known right and is not reviewable on appeal); United States v. Walterman, 408 F.3d 1084, 1085-86 (8th Cir.2005) (defendant cannot raise in second appeal challenge to sentencing enhancements that he failed to raise in first appeal, simply because he is resentenced); United States v. Harrison, 393 F.3d 805, 806 (8th Cir.2005) (finding waiver of objections when counsel confirmed at sentencing that there were no objections).
Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. The judgment is affirmed. We also grant counsel leave to withdraw.
. The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.