United States v. Lorenzo Cook, No. 09-3283 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not commit any procedural error in sentencing defendant, did not impose an unreasonable sentence and did not abuse its discretion by denying his request for a downward variance.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 09-3283 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Lorenzo Markey Cook, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: May 10, 2010 Filed: May 13, 2010 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Lorenzo Cook pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute at least 5 grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. ยงยง 846 and 841(b)(1)(B). The district court1 denied his motion for a continuance of sentencing until Congress acted on pending legislation, and, declining to vary downward, sentenced him at the bottom of the applicable Guidelines range to 92 months in prison. Cook appeals. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. arguing that the court abused its discretion in denying a continuance and a variance, and that the sentence is unreasonable because it is greater than necessary. We hold that the court committed no procedural error in sentencing Cook, imposed a substantively reasonable sentence, and did not abuse its discretion in declining to vary downward. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (in reviewing sentence, appellate court first ensures that district court committed no significant procedural error, then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard; if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005) (describing abuse of discretion). We also find no abuse of discretion in the denial of a continuance. See United States v. Vesey, 330 F.3d 1070, 1071-72 (8th Cir. 2003) (district courts are afforded broad discretion when ruling on requests for continuances, which should be granted only when requesting party has shown compelling reason). Reviewing the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel s motion to withdraw and we affirm. ______________________________ -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.
