United States of America v. Princeton C. Baker

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 13-3206
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Princeton C. Baker
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Council Bluffs
____________
Submitted: March 24, 2014
Filed: March 27, 2014
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BYE, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Princeton Baker directly appeals the sentence that the district court imposed1
after Baker pleaded guilty to escaping from federal custody. His counsel has moved
The Honorable James E. Gritzner, Chief Judge, United States District Court1
for the Southern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because it was imposed
consecutively to an undischarged state sentence.
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See United
States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (appellate review of
sentencing decision). The court determined the advisory Guidelines range; heard the
parties’ arguments for and against varying from U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b), which
recommended concurrent sentencing; discussed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; and
carefully explained the decision to run the federal sentence consecutively to the state
sentence in the particular circumstances of Baker’s case. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(b)
(directing court to consider § 3553(a) factors in determining whether sentence should
run consecutively to or concurrently with another sentence); United States v. Carter,
652 F.3d 894, 896-97 (8th Cir. 2011) (affirming sentence where court determined
variance from Guidelines was appropriate in light of § 3553(a) factors). In addition,
we have independently reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm.
As for counsel’s motion to withdraw, we conclude that allowing counsel to
withdraw at this time would not be consistent with the Eighth Circuit’s 1994
Amendment to Part V of the Plan to Implement The Criminal Justice Act of 1964.
We therefore deny counsel’s motion to withdraw as premature, without prejudice to
counsel refiling the motion upon fulfilling the duties set forth in the Amendment.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --