UNITED STATES v. LIKE (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.2021-06-14No. No. 20-3403

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the sentence and granted defense counsel leave to withdraw, finding no legal error in the district court's failure to compute jail-time credit at sentencing and no abuse of discretion in imposing a 70-month sentence within the advisory guidelines.

Ronald Like appealed his sentence on a firearms conviction, arguing the district court failed to credit him for time served in county jail before sentencing. The appellate court determined that the district court lacked authority under federal law to calculate sentencing credit at the sentencing hearing itself. Regarding Like's challenge to the reasonableness of his 70-month sentence, the court found no abuse of discretion because the sentence fell within the applicable sentencing guidelines range.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether district court had authority to credit pre-sentencing jail time under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b)
Whether 70-month sentence was reasonable and within guideline range
Availability of nonfrivolous appellate issues

Procedural posture

Ronald Like appealed his sentence following a guilty plea to a firearms offense, with appointed counsel filing an Anders brief and moving to withdraw.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

[Unpublished]

Ronald Like appeals the sentence the district court

imposed after he pleaded guilty to a firearms offense. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the district court erred in not crediting Like for time he served in a county jail before sentencing.

We conclude that the district court was not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) to compute sentencing credit at the sentencing hearing. See United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 333, 112 S.Ct. 1351, 117 L.Ed.2d 593 (1992). To the extent Like argues that the sentence is unreasonable, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a sentence of 70 months’ imprisonment, which was within the advisory guideline range. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); see also United States v. St. Claire, 831 F.3d 1039, 1043 (8th Cir. 2016). We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we have identified no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. We grant counsel leave to withdraw, and affirm.

FOOTNOTES

. The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

PER CURIAM.