Case ID: f-appx_253/html/0617-01.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, Appellee, v. Jason Nathaniel WILLIAMSON, Appellant.
    No. 06-2800.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 5, 2007.
    Filed: Nov. 8, 2007.
    Charles J. Williams, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Appellee.
    John P. Messina, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Iowa, Des Moines, IA, for Appellant.
    Jason Nathaniel Williamson, Anamosa, IA, pro se.
    Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Jason Nathaniel Williamson appeals the 235-month prison sentences the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to bank robbery with a dangerous weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), and money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(l)(B)(i). His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the sentences, at the top of the advisory Guidelines range, are unreasonable, because the court gave undue weight to a robbery victim’s testimony as compared to Williamson’s mental illness and sentenced him beyond what was minimally sufficient.

The presumption of reasonableness accorded a sentence within the Guidelines range, see Rita v. United States, —U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462-68, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007), may be rebutted by showing that the district court failed to consider a factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an irrelevant factor, or otherwise committed a clear error of judgment, see United States v. Davidson, 437 F.3d 737, 741 (8th Cir.2006). The record supports that the district court properly considered only relevant factors, including the offense circumstances and Williamson’s extensive criminal history, as well as his serious mental illness; and that the court did not commit a clear error of judgment in choosing sentences at the top of the Guidelines range. Thus, we conclude that the sentences are not unreasonable. See United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th Cir.2005) (standard of review).

Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw on condition that counsel inform appellant about the procedures for filing petitions for rehearing and for certiorari. 
      
      . The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.