United States v. Donald Lee Dugan

1The HONORABLE MICHAEL J. DAVIS, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 99-1063
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* District of Minnesota.
Robert Lloyd Williams, also known as *
“Cart-Rob,” * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: December 7, 2000
Filed: January 9, 2001
___________
Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
After Robert Lloyd Williams pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and
possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 846, the district court1 granted the government’s departure motion, made under
U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), and sentenced Williams to 120 months
imprisonment and five years supervised release. On appeal, appointed counsel moved

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising issues
concerning the district court’s refusal to grant Williams a mitigating-role reduction; the
court’s denial of his motion to depart downward under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3; the court’s
drug-quantity finding; and its refusal to depart below the mandatory minimum.
Williams has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.
The foregoing arguments fail. Williams stipulated in his plea agreement that a
mitigating role-reduction would not apply, see United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781,
783 (8th Cir. 1995), and the drug quantity that he contends he should be responsible
for produces a Guidelines range that is still above the 120-month departure sentence
he received, see United States v. Wyatt, 26 F.3d 863, 864 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam).
His remaining arguments, like his drug-quantity challenge, would require us to examine
the extent of the district court’s departure, which we will not do. See United States v.
Dutcher, 8 F.3d 11, 12 (8th Cir. 1993).
In accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have reviewed the
record for any non-frivolous issue. As we have found none, we now affirm and grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

-- 2 of 2 --