United States v. Ronald Coleman , 403 F. App'x 111 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 10-2300
    ___________
    United States of America,               *
    *
    Appellee,                  *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                * District Court for the
    * Southern District of Iowa.
    Ronald Theodore Coleman,                *
    * [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: November 26, 2010
    Filed: December 2, 2010
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Ronald Coleman pled guilty to conspiring to manufacture and distribute at least
    500 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. §§ 841
    (b)(1)(A), 846. The
    Government and the defense agreed that the applicable guidelines range was 262-327
    months, and both parties requested a 262-month term. The district court1 sentenced
    Coleman to 262 months’ imprisonment and 10 years of supervised release. On appeal,
    Coleman’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.
    1
    The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern
    District of Iowa.
    California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), arguing that the district court did not make an
    individualized assessment to determine the appropriateness of the requested sentence.
    We reject this argument as it is unsupported by the sentencing transcript. We
    conclude that the district court committed no procedural error and imposed a
    substantively reasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007)
    (in reviewing sentence, appellate court first ensures that district court committed no
    significant procedural error and then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence
    under abuse-of-discretion standard; if sentence is within applicable guidelines range,
    appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness); United States v. Haack,
    
    403 F.3d 997
    , 1004 (8th Cir. 2005) (describing abuse of discretion).
    Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s
    motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-2300

Citation Numbers: 403 F. App'x 111

Filed Date: 12/2/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2014