United States v. Freddie Patterson, No. 14-3065 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Loken and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence is foreclosed by his appeal waiver; career-offender finding was not clearly erroneous.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-3065 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Freddie Patterson lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: May 27, 2015 Filed: June 1, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Freddie Patterson directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to two counts of bank robbery and one count of interfering with 1 The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. commerce by threats or violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and 1951(a). His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the court improperly ruled that Patterson was a career offender, despite his two prior robbery convictions, and that the sentence was unreasonable. We conclude that Patterson’s appeal waiver should be enforced and precludes review of his sentence for substantive unreasonableness. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (court should dismiss appeal where it falls within scope of waiver, plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice would result). As to counsel’s argument that Patterson was improperly sentenced as a career offender, while Patterson reserved the right to appeal his criminal history, he did not object to the career-offender finding in the presentence report or at sentencing. Thus, the classification is reviewed for plain error, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 759 (8th Cir. 2014) (procedural errors not objected to at sentencing are reviewed for plain error), and we find no such error, see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a) (career-offender enhancement applies if defendant was at least 18 at time of offense, offense is felony that is crime of violence, and defendant has at least two prior felony convictions of crimes of violence); § 4B1.2, cmt. (n.1) (crime of violence includes robbery). Finally, having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues outside the scope of the waiver. The judgment is affirmed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________ -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.
