United States v. James Glass, No. 08-2729 (8th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. District court did not abuse its discretion by making defendant's federal sentence consecutive to his state sentence on an unrelated offense.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 08-2729 ___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. James L. Glass, also known as * Youngster, also known as Bazz, * [UNPUBLISHED] also known as Jboy, also known as * Bazzy, also known as Bass, * also known as JB, * * Appellant. * ___________ Submitted: October 16, 2009 Filed: December 11, 2009 ___________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. James Glass appeals the 130-month sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which she moves to withdraw and suggests that 1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. the district court erred in ordering Glass s federal sentence to run consecutively to a state sentence he was serving on an unrelated offense. We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a consecutive sentence. See United States v. Winston, 456 F.3d 861, 867 (8th Cir. 2006) (district court s decision to impose consecutive or concurrent sentence reviewed for reasonableness); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review is whether district court abused discretion by imposing unreasonable sentence). The court noted its obligation to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, recited the factors, and explained its decision to run the federal sentence consecutively to the state sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(b) (directing district court to consider § 3553(a) factors in determining whether sentence should run consecutively to or concurrently with another sentence); Winston, 456 F.3d at 868 (sentence affirmed where district court explained its decision to run sentence consecutively and cited § 3553(a) factors). Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel s request to withdraw subject to counsel informing Glass of the procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for writ of certiorari, and we affirm the judgment. ______________________________ -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.
