United States v. Heather Reekers

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 14-2085
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Heather Jean Reekers
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Council Bluffs
____________
Submitted: October 9, 2014
Filed: October 22, 2014
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Heather Reekers appeals the 60-month prison sentence imposed after she
pleaded guilty to a drug-conspiracy charge in a plea agreement with the government
pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. After a
change-of-plea hearing, Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer recommended that the
plea agreement be accepted by the district court. At the start of the sentencing
hearing, District Judge Robert W. Pratt stated: “the agreed-upon sentence seems to
me way too much. What am I missing?” The prosecutor and defense counsel then
provided substantial background information that was not part of the Presentence
Investigation Report. After considering this information and giving Ms. Reekers an
opportunity to comment on counsel’s explanation, the court accepted the Rule
11(c)(1)(C) agreement as being in conformance with the acceptance standards in
U.S.S.G. § 6B1.2 and the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and imposed the
agreed 60-month sentence.
On appeal, counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738(1967), arguing that Reekers’s sentence is substantively unreasonable, and has moved
for leave to withdraw. Upon careful review, we conclude that counsel’s argument is
without merit. Ms. Reekers agreed to a specific sentence in a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea
agreement. Once the district court accepted that agreement, it became binding on
both the government and Ms. Reekers, like all plea agreements, and also on the
district court. See United States v. Kling, 516 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2008).
Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment.
______________________________
-2-