United States v. Deshawn Mapp , 513 F. App'x 630 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 12-4010
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Deshawn Michael Mapp
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport
    ____________
    Submitted: July 5, 2013
    Filed: July 11, 2013
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Deshawn Mapp appeals the 105-month prison sentence that the district court1
    imposed upon remand for resentencing in light of Dorsey v. United States, 
    132 S. Ct. 1
    The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern
    District of Iowa.
    2321 (2012). Counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.
    California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (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 resentencing hearing with the calculation of his
    sentencing range under the career offender Guideline. See United States v. Olano,
    
    507 U.S. 725
    , 733 (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
    (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. The judgment is affirmed. We
    also grant counsel leave to withdraw.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-4010

Citation Numbers: 513 F. App'x 630

Judges: Wollman, Bye, Benton

Filed Date: 7/11/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024