United States v. Deshawn Mapp, No. 12-4010 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Claim raised in this appeal of the sentence imposed after remand for resentencing under Dorsey v. U.S., 132 S. Ct.2321 (2012) was not raised in defendant's first appeal, and would not be considered.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-4010 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Deshawn Michael Mapp lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________ Submitted: July 5, 2013 Filed: July 11, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Deshawn Mapp appeals the 105-month prison sentence that the district court1 imposed upon remand for resentencing in light of Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 2321 (2012). Counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Mapp was not properly classified as a career offender. We do not consider the issue, however, because Mapp did not challenge his career-offender status at his first sentencing hearing or in his first direct appeal. Further, he agreed at the resentencing hearing with the calculation of his sentencing range under the career offender Guideline. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993) (waiver is intentional relinquishment or abandonment of known right and is not reviewable on appeal); United States v. Walterman, 408 F.3d 1084, 1085-86 (8th Cir. 2005) (defendant cannot raise in second appeal challenge to sentencing enhancements that he failed to raise in first appeal, simply because he is resentenced); United States v. Harrison, 393 F.3d 805, 806 (8th Cir. 2005) (finding waiver of objections when counsel confirmed at sentencing that there were no objections). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. The judgment is affirmed. We also grant counsel leave 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.
