United States v. Bobby Gray, II ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 23-2493
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Bobby Joe Amescua Gray, II
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Western District of Arkansas - Harrison
    ____________
    Submitted: December 5, 2023
    Filed: December 8, 2023
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Bobby Gray, II 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 Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the
    Western District of Arkansas.
    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) (en banc) (reviewing
    sentences for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse-of-discretion
    standard; abuse of discretion occurs when the court fails to consider relevant factor,
    gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commits a clear error
    of judgment in weighing the 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 the district court has varied below the
    Guidelines range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that the court abused its discretion in
    not varying further).
    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 the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 23-2493

Filed Date: 12/8/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/8/2023