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, granting counsel's motion to withdraw and finding no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

Michael Lewis challenged his sentence following his guilty plea to drug and firearm offenses, with his appellate counsel filing a brief under Anders v. California arguing the sentence was unreasonably severe. The court examined whether the district judge overlooked any relevant sentencing factors under federal statute or made a clear error in judgment when weighing those factors. The court found no such problems, noting that the imposed sentence fell below the applicable sentencing guidelines range.

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

Key issues

Substantive reasonableness of criminal sentence
Whether district court overlooked § 3553(a) sentencing factors
Whether sentence fell within or below Guidelines range
Appellate counsel withdrawal under Anders v. California

Procedural posture

Lewis appealed his sentence imposed after pleading guilty, with appellate counsel moving to withdraw and filing an Anders brief challenging the sentence's reasonableness.

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[Unpublished]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.