UNITED STATES v. JOHNSON (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.2021-01-22No. No. 19-3640

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's sentence, finding it was not substantively unreasonable and that counsel's motion to withdraw was granted.

Hasheem Johnson appealed his sentence following a guilty plea to two firearm offenses, with his attorney filing a brief under Anders v. California arguing the sentence was substantively unreasonable. The appellate court examined whether the district court properly applied the statutory sentencing factors and stayed within the advisory guidelines range. Finding no deficiency in the district court's reasoning or application of law, the court determined the sentence was reasonable and supported by the record.

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

Key issues

Substantive reasonableness of sentence imposed after guilty plea
Whether district court properly considered statutory sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
Whether sentence fell within advisory sentencing guidelines range

Procedural posture

Johnson appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to firearm offenses, with counsel seeking to withdraw via an Anders brief challenging the reasonableness of the punishment imposed by the district court.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

[Unpublished]

Hasheem Johnson appeals the sentence the district court

imposed after he pleaded guilty to two firearm offenses. His counsel has moved 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), challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. The court properly considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and there is no indication that the court considered an improper or irrelevant factor or committed a clear error in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Salazar-Aleman, 741 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir. 2013) (discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions). Further, the court imposed a sentence within the advisory sentencing guidelines range. See United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (stating that a within-guidelines-range sentence is presumed reasonable). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsels motion and affirm.

FOOTNOTES

. The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

PER CURIAM.