Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-19-02414/USCOURTS-ca8-19-02414-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wie Kong Toang
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-2414

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Wie Kong Toang

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines

 ____________

 Submitted: February 3, 2020

Filed: February 6, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SHEPHERD, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Wie Toang appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1

 after he pleaded

guilty to drug and firearm offenses. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and

1

The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for

the Southern District of Iowa.

Appellate Case: 19-2414 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/06/2020 Entry ID: 4878565
has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the

sentence was unreasonable.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a

substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors listed

in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See United

States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (sentences are reviewed for

substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse of discretion standard; abuse of

discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight

to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing

appropriate factors). Further, the court imposed a sentence below the Guidelines

range. See United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting

that when district court has varied below Guidelines range, it is “nearly inconceivable”

that court abused its discretion in not varying downward further).

We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we

affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 19-2414 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/06/2020 Entry ID: 4878565