United States v. Philip Lampe, No. 17-2621 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam. Before Gruender, Murphy, and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - Anders. District court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence and other claims are without merit. [ February 23, 2018
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2621 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Philip Jason Lampe lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________ Submitted: February 14, 2018 Filed: February 26, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Philip Lampe directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. His counsel has moved 1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), suggesting that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. In a pro se brief, Lampe also appears to challenge the reasonableness of the sentence; he further contests the district court’s drug-quantity calculation and states that he was tricked into pleading guilty. After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Salazar-Aleman, 741 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir. 2013) (discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions). We also conclude that Lampe’s drug-quantity challenge is foreclosed because he stipulated to the drug quantity and resulting base offense level that the district court used to determine the applicable Guidelines range. See United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995) (defendant who explicitly and voluntarily exposes himself to specific sentence may not challenge that punishment on appeal). To the extent Lampe asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel or that his guilty plea was involuntary, we decline to consider these arguments on direct appeal. See United States v. Umanzor, 617 F.3d 1053, 1060 (8th Cir. 2010) (if defendant did not move to withdraw plea in district court, he may not challenge voluntariness of plea for first time on direct appeal); United States v. McAdory, 501 F.3d 868, 872 (8th Cir. 2007) (this court ordinarily defers ineffective-assistance claims to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings). 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.
