United States v. Robert Eberhart, No. 10-3392 (8th Cir. 2011)

 Annotate this Case

Court Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence imposed was not substantively unreasonable.

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-3392 ___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Robert Eberhart, also known as Roger * Eberhart, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. * ___________ Submitted: July 1, 2011 Filed: July 8, 2011 ___________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Robert Eberhart pleaded guilty to three counts of distributing more than five grams of cocaine base in violation of 18 U.S.C. ยง 841(a)(1). The district court1 imposed concurrent sentences of 57 months in prison and three years of supervised release. Eberhart appeals. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court abused its 1 The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. discretion in not imposing a more lenient sentence. Eberhart moves for appointment of new counsel. Eberhart has not rebutted the presumption that his sentence at the bottom of the advisory guidelines range is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); United States v. Valadez, 573 F.3d 553, 556 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). Additionally, having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court affirmed. We deny Eberhart s motion for new counsel and grant counsel s motion to withdraw, conditioned on counsel informing Eberhart about the procedures for seeking rehearing from this court and filing a petition for a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States. ______________________________ -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.