United States v. Jordan Mahathath ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 19-1672
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Jordan L. Mahathath
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau
    ____________
    Submitted: November 7, 2019
    Filed: November 13, 2019
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Jordan Lee Mahathath appeals the above-Guidelines sentence the district court1
    imposed after he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Counsel has
    1
    The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the
    Eastern District of Missouri.
    moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), challenging the sentence as an abuse of discretion and substantively
    unreasonable. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
    This court concludes that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
    sentencing Mahathath, as the record reflects the district court properly considered the
    18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Feemster, 
    572 F.3d 455
    , 461-62,
    464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (appellate court first ensures no significant procedural
    error occurred, then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under
    deferential abuse-of-discretion standard); see also United States v. Thorne, 
    896 F.3d 861
    , 862-63 (8th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (affirming upward variance of 83 months
    where court properly weighed § 3553(a) factors); United States v. Mangum, 
    625 F.3d 466
    , 469-70 (8th Cir. 2010) (upward variance was reasonable where court made
    individualized assessment based on the facts presented). The court has independently
    reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    (1988), and finds no
    nonfrivolous issues for appeal.
    The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-1672

Filed Date: 11/13/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/13/2019