United States v. Justin Tarpening ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                        United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 10-2490
    ___________
    United States of America,               *
    *
    Appellee,                   * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    v.                                * Western District of Missouri.
    *
    Justin L. Tarpening,                    * [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: October 14, 2010
    Filed: October 19, 2010
    ___________
    Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    After Justin Tarpening pled guilty to a weapons charge, the district court1
    sentenced him to 90 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal,
    counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), arguing that the 90-month sentence is unreasonable.
    The sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 
    572 F.3d 455
    ,
    461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Relying on evidence presented at the sentencing
    1
    The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western
    District of Missouri.
    hearing, the district court calculated the Guidelines range over Tarpening’s objections;
    and after recognizing the advisory nature of the Guidelines and noting that it had
    considered the 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) sentencing factors, the court imposed a sentence
    within the Guidelines range. We see no procedural error, and Tarpening has not
    rebutted the presumptive substantive reasonableness of his within-Guidelines-range
    sentence. See Rita v. United States, 
    551 U.S. 338
    , 347-50 (2007); United States v.
    Cadenas, 
    445 F.3d 1091
    , 1094 (8th Cir. 2006).
    We reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    (1988), and found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the
    judgment of the district court. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to
    counsel informing Tarpening about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a
    petition for certiorari.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-2490

Judges: Loken, Murphy, Benton

Filed Date: 10/19/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024