Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Daniel Wayne MELSHA Defendant-Appellant
[Unpublished]
Daniel Melsha directly appeals a within-Guidelines-range sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a school, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 860(a), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). In an Anders brief, Melsha’s counsel raises the district court’s 1 decision to deny an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction and the substantive reasonableness of Melsha’s sentence as two potential issues on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). She also seeks permission to withdraw as counsel.
We conclude that the district court did not clearly err when it declined to adopt an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. See United States v. Bakhtiari, 714 F.3d 1057, 1062 (8th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (reviewing the denial of an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction for clear error). This is not one of those “extraordinary cases” in which a defendant should receive both a reduction for acceptance of responsibility and an enhancement for obstruction of justice. See United States v. Honken, 184 F.3d 961, 968–69 (8th Cir. 1999).
We further conclude that Melsha’s sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461–62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions). The record establishes that the district court adequately considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), when it sentenced him. See United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (stating that a within-Guidelines-range sentence is presumptively reasonable).
We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and there are no other non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
FOOTNOTES
1. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-2380
Decided: February 27, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)