United States v. Alexander Holcomb ( 2021 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 21-2042
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Alexander Rene Holcomb
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
___________________________
No. 21-2044
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Alexander Rene Holcomb
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeals from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: December 7, 2021
Filed: December 10, 2021
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, Alexander Holcomb appeals the sentence
imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to drug, firearm, and fraud
offenses in two separate cases--instituted by separate indictments--which were
consolidated prior to the plea hearing. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw,
and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the
sentence was unreasonable.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a
substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors
listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (sentences are
reviewed for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse of discretion
standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor,
gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of
judgment in weighing appropriate factors). Further, the court imposed a sentence
below the Guidelines range. See United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127
(8th Cir. 2013) (noting that when district court has varied below Guidelines range,
it is “nearly inconceivable” that court abused its discretion in not varying downward
further).
1
The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Southern District of Iowa.
-2-
We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.
______________________________
-3-