United States v. Metrick Jenkins , 698 F. App'x 863 ( 2017 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 17-1876
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Metrick Lawan Jenkins
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines
____________
Submitted: October 2, 2017
Filed: October 24, 2017
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Metrick Lawan Jenkins directly appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence
imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to drug and firearm offenses.
1
The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.
Jenkins’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court erred in denying a
downward departure or variance based on overstatement of Jenkins’s criminal history.
Jenkins has filed a pro se brief that appears to raise the same arguments.
We lack authority to review the district court’s denial of a downward departure
under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b)(1) because the district court recognized its authority to
depart, and Jenkins does not contend that the court had any unconstitutional motive.
See United States v. Heath, 624 F.3d 884, 888 (8th Cir. 2010) (this court generally
will not review decision not to grant downward departure, unless district court had
unconstitutional motive or erroneously thought it was without authority to grant
departure). To the extent Jenkins argues that the sentence is substantively
unreasonable, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion. See United
States v. Salazar-Aleman, 741 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir. 2013) (under substantive
reasonableness review, district court abuses its discretion if it fails to consider
relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits
clear error of judgment in weighing factors).
Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-