United States v. David Schaer, No. 14-3168 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Loken and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Anders case. Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for conspiring to distribute methamphetamine; parties stipulated to base offense level and the court would not consider a challenge to drug quantity calculation; no error in failing to apply, sua sponte, a mitigating role reduction; sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-3168 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. David Charles Schaer lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: May 26, 2015 Filed: June 1, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. A jury found David Charles Schaer guilty of conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 846. The district court1 sentenced him to 110 months in prison, followed by 5 years of supervised release. Counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising several issues, which Schaer repeats in a pro se supplemental brief. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. This court rejects each of the arguments raised, because (1) the evidence was sufficient to sustain Schaer’s conviction, see United States v. Ortega, 750 F.3d 1020, 1023-24 (8th Cir. 2014); (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Schaer’s objection to the admission of evidence, see United States v. Augustine, 663 F.3d 367, 372 (8th Cir. 2011); (3) the parties stipulated to Schaer’s base offense level, and therefore this court will not review the issue of drug quantity, see United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993); (4) the district court did not plainly err in failing to apply, sua sponte, a mitigating-role reduction, see United States v. Marquez, 605 F.3d 604, 611 (8th Cir. 2010); and (5) nothing in the record suggests that the 110month prison sentence, at the bottom of the Guidelines range, was unreasonable, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). An independent review under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), reveals no nonfrivolous issues. The judgment is affirmed. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. -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.
