United States v. Mark E. Robinson , 82 F. App'x 500 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 03-1963
    ___________
    United States of America,               *
    *
    Appellee,                  *
    *
    v.                                * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    Mark Eugene Robinson,                   * Northern District of Iowa
    *
    Appellant.                 *    [UNPUBLISHED]
    ___________
    Submitted: November 7, 2003
    Filed: December 8, 2003
    ___________
    Before RILEY, McMILLIAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Mark Robinson appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1
    for the Northern District of Iowa after he pleaded guilty to bank robbery in violation
    of 
    18 U.S.C. § 2113
    (a). The district court sentenced Robinson to 96 months
    imprisonment and 3 years supervised release. Counsel has moved to withdraw on
    appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), and has filed a brief
    challenging the district court’s decision to sentence Robinson at the top of the
    1
    The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern
    District of Iowa.
    Guidelines range. Robinson has not filed a supplemental pro se brief. For the
    reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
    Specifically, Robinson’s sentence is within an unchallenged Guidelines range
    based on unobjected-to information in the presentence report, and thus the sentence
    is not reviewable. See United States v. Smotherman, 
    326 F.3d 988
    , 989 (8th Cir.)
    (per curiam) (holding appeals court lacks jurisdiction to review sentencing court’s
    exercise of discretion in setting sentence within Guidelines range), cert. denied, 
    124 S. Ct. 293
     (2003) (No. 03-5497); United States v. Woodrum, 
    959 F.2d 100
    , 101 (8th
    Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (holding sentence is not reviewable merely because it is at top
    end of properly calculated Guidelines range). Further, we have carefully reviewed
    the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
     (1988), and have found
    no nonfrivolous issues.
    Thus, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of
    the district court.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-1963

Citation Numbers: 82 F. App'x 500

Judges: Riley, McMillian, Smith

Filed Date: 12/8/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024