United States v. Peerachet Thipboonngam, No. 20-1024 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Gruender and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant waived his challenge to the base offense calculation by withdrawing his objection; below-guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable. [ July 29, 2020 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-1024 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Peerachet Thipboonngam lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: July 21, 2020 Filed: July 30, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Peerachet Thipboonngam appeals after he pled guilty to sex-trafficking and money-laundering offenses, and the district court1 imposed a sentence below the 1 The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. advisory range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), suggesting the district court erred in calculating the base offense level and Thipboonngam’s sentence is substantively unreasonable. We conclude Thipboonngam waived his challenge to the base offense level. See United States v. Evenson, 864 F.3d 981, 983 (8th Cir. 2017) (“By raising and then withdrawing an objection . . . [a defendant] demonstrate[s] the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of his right to argue the point.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). We also conclude the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and discussing substantive reasonableness). In addition, having reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we 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.
