Filed: Sep. 17, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 99-4143 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Nathan J. Jarvis, * District of Nebraska. * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * _ Submitted: September 7, 2001 Filed: September 17, 2001 _ Before MURPHY, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and BEAM, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Nathan J. Jarvis pleaded guilty to distributing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and the district c
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 99-4143 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Nathan J. Jarvis, * District of Nebraska. * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * _ Submitted: September 7, 2001 Filed: September 17, 2001 _ Before MURPHY, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and BEAM, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Nathan J. Jarvis pleaded guilty to distributing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and the district co..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 99-4143
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, *
*
v. * Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the
Nathan J. Jarvis, * District of Nebraska.
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: September 7, 2001
Filed: September 17, 2001
___________
Before MURPHY, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Nathan J. Jarvis pleaded guilty to distributing methamphetamine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and the district court1 sentenced him to 108 months
imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. On appeal, Jarvis’s counsel has filed a
brief--arguing that the court should have granted Jarvis a downward departure--and has
moved to withdraw under Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967). Jarvis has not
filed a pro se supplemental brief.
1
The Honorable William G. Cambridge, United States District Judge for the
District of Nebraska, now retired.
As counsel acknowledges, because the district court was aware of its authority
to grant a downward departure, its discretionary decision not to depart is unreviewable.
See United States v. Lim,
235 F.3d 382, 385 (8th Cir. 2000). After reviewing the
record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found
no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-2-