Filed: Jul. 05, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 04-3432 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Anthony Arnez Sanford, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * _ Submitted: June 15, 2005 Filed: July 5, 2005 _ Before MELLOY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Anthony Sanford challenges the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug conspiracy. His counsel
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 04-3432 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Anthony Arnez Sanford, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * _ Submitted: June 15, 2005 Filed: July 5, 2005 _ Before MELLOY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Anthony Sanford challenges the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug conspiracy. His counsel h..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 04-3432
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Southern District of Iowa.
Anthony Arnez Sanford, *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: June 15, 2005
Filed: July 5, 2005
___________
Before MELLOY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Anthony Sanford challenges the sentence the district court1 imposed after he
pleaded guilty to a drug conspiracy. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a
brief under Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that it was plain error
under Blakely v. Washington,
124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), for the court to assess two
criminal history points based on Sanford’s probationary status at the time he
committed the instant offense.
1
The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern
District of Iowa.
This argument fails. A jury need not find the fact of a prior conviction, see
United States v. Booker,
125 S. Ct. 738, 755-56 (2005), and Sanford did not object
to the presentence report’s factual determination that he was on probation for a prior
conviction when he committed the instant offense, see United States v. Speller,
356
F.3d 904, 907 (8th Cir. 2004).
Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio,
488
U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-