United States v. Joseph Williams , 548 F. App'x 349 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                 United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 13-1835
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Joseph Pierre Williams, also known as JP
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock
    ____________
    Submitted: December 10, 2013
    Filed: December 18, 2013
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Joseph Williams directly appeals the 175-month prison sentence that the
    district court1 imposed upon him after he pleaded guilty to possessing oxycodone
    1
    The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the
    Eastern District of Arkansas.
    with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). His
    counsel has moved to withdraw, and in a brief filed under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), counsel suggests that the sentence was unreasonable, and that the
    district court abused its discretion by improperly weighing the sentencing factors of
    18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and by applying a presumption of reasonableness to the
    applicable Sentencing Guidelines range.
    After careful review, we conclude that the district court adequately considered
    the sentencing factors. See United States v. Feemster, 
    572 F.3d 455
    , 461 (8th Cir.
    2009) (en banc) (standard of review). We find nothing in the record to suggest that
    the district court applied a presumption of reasonableness to the Guidelines range.
    See Rita v. United States, 
    551 U.S. 338
    , 351 (2007). It is within our discretion to apply
    a presumption of reasonableness to Williams’s sentence because it falls within the
    undisputed Guidelines range, and we do so here. See 
    Feemster, 572 F.3d at 461
    .
    Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, and we
    grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-1835

Citation Numbers: 548 F. App'x 349

Judges: Loken, Bowman, Gruender

Filed Date: 12/18/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024