At page 995 rejecting petitioner's due process argument that the Missouri Supreme Court's proportionality review is arbitrary, with a goal of affirming death sentences3 citing cases
- Basile v. Bowersox, 125 F. Supp. 2d 930 (E.D. Mo. 1999).(rejecting petitioner's due process argument that the Missouri Supreme Court's proportionality review is arbitrary, with a goal of affirming death sentences)
- Johnson v. Nagle, 58 F. Supp. 2d 1303 (N.D. Ala. 1999).(analysis different if alternative charges given "did not make sense)
- Leisure v. Bowersox, 990 F. Supp. 769 (E.D. Mo. 1998). The Eighth Circuit held that the petitioner could not show prejudice under Strickland because the petitioner's jury was not presented with an "all-or-nothing choice." Id. at 995.
At page 986 cited at this page1 citing case
- Palmer v. Clarke, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1011 (D. Neb. 2003).See Kilgore, 124 F.3d at 986 (emphasis added).
At page 992 cited at this page1 citing case
- Keyes v. Bowersox, 230 F. Supp. 2d 971 (E.D. Mo. 2002).See Luckett, 203 F.3d at 1054-55 (habeas petitioner did not show that prosecutor's reason for striking African-American venireperson due to weak answers on *980 the death penalty was pretextual, despite prosecutor's failure to strike white…
Other citing cases
- Roberts v. Bowersox, 61 F. Supp. 2d 896 (E.D. Mo. 1999).
v.
Adam William GOODER, Appellant
Adam William Gooder appeals the 18-month sentence imposed by the district court [1] after he pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to a bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3. Gooder contends the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(1) by considering disputed information in setting his sentence at the high end of the Guidelines range.
Contrary to Gooder’s argument, we believe the district court sufficiently indicated that it was not going to consider the controverted matters, and that the seriousness of Gooder’s undisputed offense conduct — driving the getaway vehicle — justified a sentence at the top of the range for the accessory charge. See United States v. Willis, 559 F.2d 443, 444 (5th Cir.1977) (per curiam) (defendant was aider and abettor where, after learning of robbery when codefendants ran out of bank and into his car, he attempted to help them escape; aider and abettor is liable as principal). We note that Gooder’s sentence was within the range anticipated by the plea agreement.
Accordingly, we affirm.
MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge, dissents.. The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesola.