United States v. Timothy Grie, No. 10-3719 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. District court did not have discretion to impose a sentence below the statutory minimum, and defendant's argument that his sentence was unreasonable is unavailing.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-3719 ___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Timothy J. Griess, also known as * Towtruck, also known as TJ, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. * ___________ Submitted: April 08, 2011 Filed: April 13, 2011 ___________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Timothy Griess pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and subject to sentencing under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1). The district court1 sentenced him to the statutory minimum of 120 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. Griess appeals. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. (1967), in which he seeks to withdraw and argues that the sentence was greater than necessary to accomplish the statutory sentencing goals. Counsel s challenge to the sentence is unavailing. The record reflects that Griess understood the statutory minimum penalties when he entered his guilty plea. The district court had no discretion to impose a sentence below the statutory minimum where there was neither a departure motion by the government nor eligibility for safety-valve relief. See United States v. Chacon, 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003). Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we allow counsel 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.
