United States of America v. Michael S. Sacca

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 12-3831
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Michael S. Sacca
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln
____________
Submitted: August 7, 2013
Filed: August 8, 2013
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Michael S. Sacca appeals the 63-month sentence the district court imposed1
after he pled guilty to possessing pseudoephedrine with the intent, and having
The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District1
of Nebraska.

-- 1 of 2 --

reasonable cause to believe it would be used, to manufacture methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(1). Sacca’s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the government failed to meet its
burden of proof regarding the drug quantity involved in the offense.
The district court did not clearly err in its drug-quantity determination, as it
relied on testimony and a government exhibit to find that Sacca purchased 58 grams
of pseudoephedrine (contained in over-the-counter medications) for the purpose of
methamphetamine manufacturing. See United States v. Morales, 445 F.3d 1081, 1085
(8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review; sentencing court may find facts by a
preponderance of the evidence). Further, the sentence was not unreasonable. See
United States v. Hull, 646 F.3d 583, 588 (8th Cir. 2011) (reviewing sentence under
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, and according presumption of
reasonableness to sentence within advisory Guidelines range); United States v.
Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (describing procedural error).
Independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), reveals
no nonfrivolous issue.
This court affirms the judgment of the district court, and grants counsel’s
motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --