Foster D. Johnson pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, hydrocodone, and marijuana, as well as possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. He was sentenced to 96 months of imprisonment. At the time of sentencing, the judge explicitly noted that while Sentencing Guidelines were expected to change, the 96-month term was the sentence he would impose regardless of those future adjustments. Later, Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines was adopted, which would have lowered Johnson's criminal history category and reduced his guideline range to 63 to 78 months. Relying on this amendment, Johnson filed a motion for sentence reduction. The district court denied the motion, citing Johnson's lengthy criminal history and reiterating that the original sentence was appropriate even in light of the guideline changes. Johnson appealed, but his counsel, Megan Saillant, filed a motion to withdraw, arguing the appeal was frivolous.
The court addressed the appeal through the lens of the Anders v. California standard, which governs when appointed counsel may withdraw from a criminal appeal. Under Anders, counsel must conduct a conscientious examination of the record and, if they find the appeal wholly frivolous, file a brief pointing to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. The court noted that Saillant fulfilled this duty by filing a brief listing potential issues and explaining that no non-frivolous arguments existed. The court then conducted its own independent review of the entire record. The court found that the district court's reasoning was sound: the sentencing judge had already considered the possibility of guideline changes and determined the 96-month sentence was appropriate. Furthermore, the district court correctly weighed the statutory factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), particularly Johnson's criminal history, against the requested reduction. Because the court found no non-frivolous issues for review, it granted the motion to withdraw and affirmed the denial of the sentence reduction.
The original 96-month sentence remains in effect. The decision confirms that a district court's prior determination that a sentence is appropriate despite potential guideline changes is a significant factor in denying reductions. It also establishes that where counsel properly follows Anders procedures and the appellate court independently finds the appeal frivolous, the appeal will be dismissed without further argument.