UNITED STATES v. GIVENS (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.2021-01-22No. No. 20-1996

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the sentence and special conditions of supervised release, finding the district court's sentencing decision reasonable under applicable statutory factors and detecting no plain error regarding the unobjected-to release conditions.

Derrick Givens appealed his guilty plea conviction for a drug offense, challenging the reasonableness of his below-guideline sentence and the special conditions imposed on his supervised release. The appellate court examined whether the district court properly applied the statutory sentencing factors and found no error in the court's consideration or weighing of relevant factors, nor did the court rely on improper considerations. The court likewise found no plain error in the supervised release conditions that Givens had failed to object to at the district level.

Following an independent review of the entire record for any potential appellable issues, the court identified no viable claims for appeal. Accordingly, counsel's request to withdraw was granted.

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

Key issues

Substantive reasonableness of below-guideline sentence
Proper application of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors
Plain error in special conditions of supervised release

Procedural posture

Givens appealed following his guilty plea and sentencing to a below-guideline prison term, with appointed counsel moving to withdraw under Anders v. California.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

[Unpublished]

Derrick Givens appeals after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense, and the district court

imposed a sentence of imprisonment below the advisory sentencing guidelines range. 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 Givenss sentence and the special conditions of his supervised release.

Upon 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). We further conclude that the court did not plainly err in imposing the unobjected-to special conditions of supervised release. See United States v. Winston, 850 F.3d 377, 379-80 (8th Cir. 2017) (applying plain-error review to objections to a special condition of supervised release that the defendant failed to raise before the district court); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) (setting forth general criteria for special conditions of supervised release).

In addition, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to 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 to withdraw, and we affirm.

FOOTNOTES

. The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

PER CURIAM.