United States v. Billy Evans , 356 F. App'x 899 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 08-3911
    ___________
    United States of America,               *
    *
    Appellee,                  *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                * District Court for the
    * Eastern District of Missouri.
    Billy Mark Evans,                       *
    *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: December 10, 2009
    Filed: December 15, 2009
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Billy Mark Evans (Evans) pled guilty to being a felon in possession of firearms
    and body armor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 931(a). The district court1
    imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 46 months imprisonment and 2 years of
    supervised release. On appeal, Evans’s counsel seeks to withdraw and has filed a
    brief under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), arguing the prison sentence is
    unreasonable and longer than necessary to satisfy 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), given Evans’s
    physical and mental health problems.
    1
    The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Missouri.
    We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion or impose an
    unreasonable sentence, because the district court calculated the undisputed Guidelines
    sentencing range, considered the relevant section 3553(a) factors, and explained its
    reasons for the sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 
    572 F.3d 455
    , 461 (8th Cir.
    2009) (en banc) (declaring, an appellate court reviews for abuse of discretion, first
    ensuring the district court committed no significant procedural error, and then
    considering the substantive reasonableness of the sentence). In addition, there is no
    indication the district court, in imposing a below-Guidelines sentence, overlooked or
    misapplied any relevant section 3553(a) factor, or gave significant weight to an
    improper or irrelevant factor. See United States v. Stults, 
    575 F.3d 834
    , 849 (8th Cir.
    2009) (holding the sentence was not unreasonable where the record reflected the
    district court (1) made an individualized assessment based on the facts presented and
    (2) specifically addressed defendant’s proffered information in the court’s
    consideration of the sentencing factors); cf. United States v. Sicaros-Quintero, 
    557 F.3d 579
    , 583 (8th Cir. 2009) (according a presumption of reasonableness on appeal
    to a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range).
    Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    ,
    80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issue. We grant counsel leave to withdraw, and
    we affirm the judgment.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-3911

Citation Numbers: 356 F. App'x 899

Judges: Wollman, Riley, Smith

Filed Date: 12/15/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024