The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
04-3208•Gregory Alan Hill v. KC Metro Task Force
04-3208Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitMay 31, 2006
1The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 05-2234
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Western District of Missouri.
Gary Sembler, *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: May 5, 2006
Filed: May 11, 2006
___________
Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Gary Sembler appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded
guilty to conspiring to defraud the United States, see 18 U.S.C. § 286, and presenting
false claims against the United States, see 18 U.S.C. § 287. On appeal, counsel has
moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
noting Sembler’s belief that he should have been sentenced as a minor participant.
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
We conclude that it was not clear error for the district court to deny a minor-
role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 upon finding that the conspiracy could not have
taken place without Sembler’s involvement. See United States v. Casares-Cardenas,
14 F.3d 1283, 1289 (8th Cir.) (decision whether to accord minor-role status is factual
finding reviewed for clear error; denial of minor-role reduction was not clear error
where defendant’s role was “integral to the advancement of the purpose of the
conspiracy”), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 849 (1994).
Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75
(1988), we find no other nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.