UNITED STATES v. LEWIS (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.2021-09-07No. No. 21-1700

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the sentence and granted counsel's motion to withdraw, finding the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence and identifying no nonfrivolous appellate issues.

Michael Lewis appealed his sentence following guilty pleas to drug and firearm charges, with his attorney filing a motion to withdraw representation and an Anders brief questioning whether the sentence was substantively reasonable. The appellate court examined whether the district judge overlooked any statutory sentencing factors under federal law or made a clear error in balancing the relevant considerations. Finding no deficiency in the sentencing analysis and noting that the imposed sentence fell below the applicable sentencing guidelines range, the court determined the sentence was not unreasonable.

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

Key issues

Substantive reasonableness of criminal sentence
District court's application of statutory sentencing factors
Sentence within guidelines range
Anders motion for withdrawal of counsel

Procedural posture

Lewis appealed his sentence following guilty pleas to drug and firearm offenses, with appointed counsel seeking to withdraw by filing an Anders brief challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

[Unpublished]

Michael Lewis appeals the sentence the district court

imposed after he pleaded guilty to drug and 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, as there was no indication that it overlooked a relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors, see United States v. Salazar-Aleman, 741 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review); and the sentence was below the Guidelines range, see United States v. Moore, 581 F.3d 681, 684 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). 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 nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsels motion and affirm. FOOTNOTES

. The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

PER CURIAM.