United States v. Gregory Wieskamp, No. 17-1463 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Benton, Murphy and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant did not object to the purported Rule 11 error in the district court proceedings, and no plain error occurred; sentence was not substantively unreasonable. [ February 14, 2018
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-1463 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Gregory Wayne Wieskamp lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________ Submitted: February 6, 2018 Filed: February 15, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, MURPHY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Gregory Wieskamp directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to ammunition possession offenses, and the district court1 sentenced him within the Guidelines 1 The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. range. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court inadequately informed Wieskamp of his right to persist in a plea of not guilty, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(B), and abused its discretion by sentencing Wieskamp to a greater prison term than his codefendants received. Wieskamp did not object to the purported Rule 11 error below, and after careful review, we conclude that no plain error occurred. See United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 76 (2004) (plain-error standard); United States v. Gillen, 449 F.3d 898, 903-04 (8th Cir. 2006) (concluding that failure to give Rule 11 warning verbatim was harmless where plea agreement contained warning and defendant confirmed that he understood agreement). We also conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as it specifically discussed several sentencing factors, and considered counsel’s argument that Wieskamp should not receive a harsher sentence than two of his codefendants. See United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion review; where court makes individualized assessment based on facts presented, addressing defendant’s proffered information in considering 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, sentence is not unreasonable); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may, but is not required to, apply presumption of reasonableness). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, 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.
