Full text
United States v. Frankie Adams
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________
No. 99-1054 ___________
United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Frankie Adams, also known as * “Tank,” * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. * * ___________
Submitted: September 7, 2000 Filed: September 14, 2000 ___________
Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges. ___________
PER CURIAM.
Frankie Adams challenges the sentence imposed by the district court1 following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The district court granted the government’s substantial-assistance departure motion and sentenced Adams to 120 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. On appeal, counsel moved to
1 The HONORABLE MICHAEL J. DAVIS, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the district court&s refusal to depart further and its drug quantity finding. Adams has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.
Both of the arguments fail. We do not review the extent of a substantial- assistance departure, see United States v. Dutcher, 8 F.3d 11, 12 (8th Cir. 1993), and we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in its drug-quantity finding, which is amply supported by the plea-hearing statements of Adams and a coconspirator, as well as by Adams’s testimony at the trial of his coconspirators, see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B); United States v. Mosby, 177 F.3d 1067, 1070 (8th Cir. 1999) (standard of review), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 1260 (2000); United States v. Makes Room, 49 F.3d 410, 415 (8th Cir. 1995) (sentencing judge may consider evidence introduced during proceedings involving codefendants); United States v. Wright, 29 F.3d 372, 374 (8th Cir. 1994) (district court may rely on defendant&s admission in determining drug quantity).
In accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we also have reviewed the record for any non-frivolous issues and have found none. Accordingly, we now affirm and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-2-