United States v. Gregory Donner, No. 17-3397 (8th Cir. 2018)Annotate this Case
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Bowman and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant waived any challenge to imposition of an enhancement for maintaining a drug house when he withdrew his objection at sentencing; any error in calculating the quantity of LSD in the case was harmless as it did not change the base offense level and had no effect on defendant's sentence.
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-3397 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Gregory W. Donner lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau ____________ Submitted: December 13, 2018 Filed: December 18, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Gregory Donner directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed 1 The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Donner has not filed a pro se brief. While Donner challenges a sentencing enhancement the district court imposed for maintaining a manufacturing or distribution premises, he waived his challenge to the enhancement when he withdrew his objection to it in the district court. See United States v. Stoney End of Horn, 829 F.3d 681, 687-88 (8th Cir. 2016). Donner also argues that the drug quantity calculation was erroneous because the entire weight of liquid LSD was used in calculating the LSD quantity, rather than extracting the drug from its carrier. We conclude that any such error in calculating the drug quantity is harmless because it did not change the base offense level imposed and had no effect on Donner’s sentence. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a) (harmless-error rule); United States v. Phillippi, 911 F.2d 149, 151 (8th Cir. 1990). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -2-