United States v. Gary Sembler, No. 05-2234 (8th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. District court did not err in denying defendant's request for a minor participant reduction under Guidelines Sec. 3B1.2.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 05-2234 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Gary Sembler, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: May 5, 2006 Filed: May 11, 2006 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Gary Sembler appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud the United States, see 18 U.S.C. § 286, and presenting false claims against the United States, see 18 U.S.C. § 287. On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), noting Sembler s belief that he should have been sentenced as a minor participant. 1 The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. We conclude that it was not clear error for the district court to deny a minorrole reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 upon finding that the conspiracy could not have taken place without Sembler s involvement. See United States v. Casares-Cardenas, 14 F.3d 1283, 1289 (8th Cir.) (decision whether to accord minor-role status is factual finding reviewed for clear error; denial of minor-role reduction was not clear error where defendant s role was integral to the advancement of the purpose of the conspiracy ), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 849 (1994). Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no other nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
