United States v. Michael Teel

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-1656
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Michael Ray Teel
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
____________
Submitted: August 9, 2022
Filed: August 15, 2022
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Michael Ray Teel appeals after he pled guilty to being a felon in possession
of a firearm. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
Teel objects to the Guidelines-range sentence the district court 1 imposed.
Counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he challenges the sentence as
unreasonable. The court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. The record
reflects that the court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, recognized its
authority to vary downward, but declined to do so after considering Teel’s arguments
and the record. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62, 464 (8th Cir.
2009) (en banc) (in reviewing sentences, appellate court first ensures no significant
procedural error occurred, then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence
under 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); see also United
States v. Lewis, 593 F.3d 765, 773 (8th Cir. 2010) (denial of downward variance was
reasonable, as court considered arguments for downward variance and exercised its
discretion in rejecting them); cf. United States v. St. Claire, 831 F.3d 1039, 1043
(8th Cir. 2016) (within-Guidelines sentence is accorded a presumption of substantive
reasonableness on appeal).
This court has reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and has found no non-frivolous issues.
The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
______________________________
1
The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.
-2-