United States v. Michael Sacca, No. 12-3831 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. District court's drug quantity calculation was not clearly erroneous; sentence was not unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-3831 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Michael S. Sacca lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln ____________ Submitted: August 7, 2013 Filed: August 8, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Michael S. Sacca appeals the 63-month sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to possessing pseudoephedrine with the intent, and having 1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. reasonable cause to believe it would be used, to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. ยง 841(c)(1). Sacca s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the government failed to meet its burden of proof regarding the drug quantity involved in the offense. The district court did not clearly err in its drug-quantity determination, as it relied on testimony and a government exhibit to find that Sacca purchased 58 grams of pseudoephedrine (contained in over-the-counter medications) for the purpose of methamphetamine manufacturing. See United States v. Morales, 445 F.3d 1081, 1085 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review; sentencing court may find facts by a preponderance of the evidence). Further, the sentence was not unreasonable. See United States v. Hull, 646 F.3d 583, 588 (8th Cir. 2011) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, and according presumption of reasonableness to sentence within advisory Guidelines range); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (describing procedural error). Independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), reveals no nonfrivolous issue. This court affirms the judgment of the district court, and grants 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.
