United States v. Gregory Wieskamp

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 17-1463
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Gregory Wayne Wieskamp
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport
____________
Submitted: February 6, 2018
Filed: February 15, 2018
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, MURPHY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Gregory Wieskamp directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to ammunition
possession offenses, and the district court1 sentenced him within the Guidelines
1
The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.
range. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court inadequately informed
Wieskamp of his right to persist in a plea of not guilty, see Fed. R. Crim.
P. 11(b)(1)(B), and abused its discretion by sentencing Wieskamp to a greater prison
term than his codefendants received.
Wieskamp did not object to the purported Rule 11 error below, and after
careful review, we conclude that no plain error occurred. See United States v.
Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 76 (2004) (plain-error standard); United States v.
Gillen, 449 F.3d 898, 903-04 (8th Cir. 2006) (concluding that failure to give Rule 11
warning verbatim was harmless where plea agreement contained warning and
defendant confirmed that he understood agreement). We also conclude that the
district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as it specifically
discussed several sentencing factors, and considered counsel’s argument that
Wieskamp should not receive a harsher sentence than two of his codefendants. See
United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion review;
where court makes individualized assessment based on facts presented, addressing
defendant’s proffered information in considering 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors,
sentence is not unreasonable); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th
Cir. 2009) (en banc) (if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may, but
is not required to, apply presumption of reasonableness).
Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75
(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-