United States v. Daniel Wire, No. 09-2954 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence, which represented the lowest point on the undisputed Guidelines range, was not unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 09-2954 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Daniel Wire, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: February 11, 2010 Filed: February 17, 2010 ___________ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Daniel Wire pleaded guilty to using the identification documents of a deceased person to falsely apply for a passport, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) (2006) (Count 1), and to making a false statement in applying for the passport, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542 (2006) (Count 2). The District Court1 sentenced Wire to 15 months in prison on Count 2, a statutorily required consecutive sentence of 2 years in prison on Count 1, and concurrent supervised-release terms of 1 year and 3 years. On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. 1 The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the 15-month sentence on Count 2 was greater than necessary to comply sufficiently with the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), and therefore was an abuse of discretion. Wire has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. The District Court did not abuse its discretion: the 15-month sentence was imposed at the lowest point in the undisputed Guidelines range, and we see no basis upon which Wire could rebut the resulting presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); United States v. Sicaros-Quintero, 557 F.3d 579, 583 (8th Cir. 2009). Further, having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel s motion 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.
