United States v. Anthony Caldwell ( 2023 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-3667
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Anthony Caldwell, also known as Peta Man
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: December 5, 2023
Filed: December 27, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Anthony Caldwell appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he
pleaded guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and
1
The Honorable Stephen R. Clark, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri.
has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the
reasonableness of the sentence. Caldwell has filed a pro se brief raising additional
sentencing issues.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a
substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455,
461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (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). The record establishes that the district court adequately
considered the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v.
Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (on appeal, within-Guidelines-range
sentence may be presumed reasonable).
As to the arguments in Caldwell’s pro se brief, we conclude that Caldwell
could not challenge the quantity of drugs attributed to him, as he stipulated to the
drug quantity in his plea agreement. See United States v. Early, 77 F.3d 242, 244 (8th
Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (defendant who did not challenge plea agreement or seek to
withdraw from it was bound by its stipulations). We also conclude that the district
court did not plainly err in calculating the Guidelines range. See United States v.
Moore, 565 F.3d 435, 437 (8th Cir. 2009) (unobjected-to procedural sentencing error
is reviewed under plain error standard).
We have 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
the judgment, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-