United States v. David Barrett ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                             ___________
    No. 96-1799
    ___________
    United States of America,         *
    *
    Appellee,               *
    *   Appeal from the United States
    v.                           *   District Court for the
    *   District of Nebraska.
    David Barrett,                    *
    *       [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.              *
    ___________
    Submitted:    November 29, 1996
    Filed:   December 6, 1996
    ___________
    Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    David Barrett challenges the 3-year sentence of probation
    imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to using a
    telephone to facilitate the distribution of methamphetamine, in
    violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). Counsel filed a brief pursuant to
    Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), and was granted leave to
    withdraw.   This court granted Barrett leave to file a pro se
    supplemental brief, which he has not done. We affirm.
    In his Anders brief, counsel relates that Barrett believes he
    was entrapped by a government witness and had the government told
    him of the witness's "informant" status, he would not have pleaded
    guilty, but would have gone to trial and presented an entrapment
    defense.   We conclude Barrett waived any entrapment defense by
    1
    The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge
    for the District of Nebraska.
    pleading guilty. See Peoples v. United States, 
    412 F.2d 5
    , 7 (8th
    Cir. 1969); United States v. Riles, 
    928 F.2d 339
    , 342 (10th Cir.
    1991); United States v. Sarmiento, 
    786 F.2d 665
    , 668 (5th Cir.
    1986). Regardless, we do not believe Barrett could have prevailed
    on such a defense, because the evidence reflects he was predisposed
    to purchase methamphetamine from, and initiated contact with, the
    witness. See United States v. Gullickson, 
    982 F.2d 1231
    , 1235 (8th
    Cir. 1993) (to prove entrapment defense, defendant must show he was
    not predisposed to commit crime and government induced him to
    commit crime).
    Having carefully reviewed the record, we have found no
    nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    , 80
    (1988).
    Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-