Case ID: f-appx_605/html/0591-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": ". PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Demario Dante PALMER, also known as Ramsey Bell, also known as Ramsey D. Bell, also known as Terrance Bell, also known as Terrence Bell, also known as Terrance D. Bell, also known as Demario Palmer, also known as Cotton, also known as Mike, also known as Orlandis Gwin, also known as Patrick Drivers, also known as Dontae Jones, also known as Mario Palmer, also known as Demarion Palmer, also known as Demarrio N. Palmer, also known as Elliot Holdin, also known as Demario Dontae Palmer, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-1230.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 24, 2015.
    Filed: June 30, 2015.
    Adam Kerndt, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Davenport, IA, Maureen McGuire, Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Andrea D. Mason, Lane & Waterman, Davenport, IA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Demario Dante Palmer, Inez, KY, pro se.
    Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
   . PER CURIAM.

Demario Palmer directly appeals after - he pled guilty to a drug offense, and the district court sentenced him to a term of imprisonment below the calculated 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), arguing that the district court improperly denied Palmer’s request for a downward departure based on an overstated criminal history, and that Palmer’s sentence is substantively unreasonable.

The denial of Palmer’s request for a downward departure is not reviewable on appeal, as the district court recognized its authority to depart, and there is no indication that the district court had any unconstitutional motive in denying the request. See United States v. Anderson, 570 F.3d 1025, 1034 (8th Cir.2009). As to the substantive reasonableness of Palmer’s sentence, we conclude, upon careful review, that no abuse of discretion occurred. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc); United States v. Moore, 581 F.3d 681, 683 (8th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

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 nonfrivo-lous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm. 
      
      . The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.