United States v. Mark Walker, No. 05-3371 (8th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal Case - sentence. Defendant withdrew his objection to drug quantity determination in PSR and thus waived his argument that sentence is unreasonable in light of co-conspirators' sentencing.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 05-3371 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Mark Walker, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: June 15, 2006 Filed: June 20, 2006 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Mark Walker (Walker) pled guilty to conspiring to distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. He initially filed a written objection to the presentence report s (PSR) recommendation that he be held responsible for 15 kilograms or more of methamphetamine mixture. However, Walker withdrew this objection in open court at the sentencing hearing. The district court1 sentenced him to 235 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. 1 The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. On appeal, Walker argues that his sentence is unreasonable under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), because the district court later held two of his co-conspirators, who contested their drug quantities at sentencing, responsible for more than 500 grams but less than 1.5 kilograms of methamphetamine mixture. We conclude, by withdrawing his drug-quantity objection below, Walker waived this argument, precluding appellate review. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733-34 (1993) (waiver is intentional relinquishment or abandonment of known right, and it precludes appellate review even for plain error); United States v. Fortner, No. 05-4099, 2006 WL 1409963 (8th Cir. May 24, 2006) (per curiam) (unpublished) (holding defendant waived her right to appeal sentencing issues when she did not object to the PSR quantity calculation); United States v. Thompson, 289 F.3d 524, 526-27 (8th Cir. 2002) (where defendant s lawyer raised but then withdrew objection, defendant waived issue under Olano and was precluded from arguing it on appeal). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. ______________________________ -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.
