United States v. Robert J. Gray ( 1997 )


Menu:
  •                                       ___________
    No. 96-3512
    ___________
    United States of America,                 *
    *
    Appellee,                 *
    *   Appeal from the United States
    v.                                   *   District Court for the
    *   Eastern District of Arkansas
    Robert J. Gray,                           *
    *         [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                *
    ___________
    Submitted:    January 7, 1997
    Filed:   January 21, 1997
    ___________
    Before McMILLIAN, HENLEY and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit
    Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Robert J. Gray appeals his nine-month sentence imposed by the
    District Court1 for the Eastern District of Arkansas after he pleaded
    guilty to aiding and abetting in wrecking a train, in violation of 18
    U.S.C. §§ 1992 and 2.           Counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
    California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), and was granted leave to withdraw.           Gray
    did not avail himself of the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental
    brief.       For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
    Although Gray argues that his sentence should have included
    probation, an option authorized by U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
    Manual § 5C1.1(c)(3) (1995), the district court was within its
    1
    The Honorable James Maxwell Moody, United States District
    Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
    discretion to impose imprisonment.      The district court specifically
    noted at sentencing its options under Guidelines § 5C1.1(c)(2) and
    (3), and also stated that the sentence should be fair and just,
    reflect the seriousness of the crime, and deter others from similar
    conduct in the future.     Thus, contrary to Gray's contention, the
    district court considered the sentencing options and stated reasons
    for the sentence.    The district court was not required to state its
    reason for choosing the particular point within the sentencing
    range, because the applicable range did not span more than 24
    months.   See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(1); United States v. Garrido, 
    38 F.3d 981
    , 986 (8th Cir. 1994); United States v. Ehret, 
    885 F.2d 441
    , 445 (8th Cir. 1989) (same), cert. denied, 
    493 U.S. 1062
    (1990).
    Having   carefully   reviewed   the   record,   we   find   no   other
    nonfrivolous issues for appeal.      See Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    ,
    80 (1988).
    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 96-3512

Filed Date: 1/21/1997

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021