Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03576/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03576-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jonathan M. Arther
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3576

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Jonathan M. Arther, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 3, 2006

Filed: August 17, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jonathan Arther (Arther) appeals the 96-month prison sentence imposed by the

district court1

 upon his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). His counsel has moved to

withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing

the sentence is unreasonable. 

Appellate Case: 05-3576 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/17/2006 Entry ID: 2079263
-2-

We reject this argument. The sentence imposed was within the advisory

Guidelines imprisonment range of 77-96 months, and nothing in the record rebuts the

presumption that the sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Tobacco, 428 F.3d

1148, 1151 (8th Cir. 2005) (sentence within applicable Guidelines range is

presumptively reasonable; presumption can be rebutted if district court (1) failed to

consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight, (2) gave

significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or (3) considered only appropriate

factors but in weighing factors committed clear error of judgment). In setting the

sentence, the district court noted Arther’s particular characteristics and the need to

protect society. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(C); United States v. Long Soldier,

431 F.3d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir. 2005) (explaining a district court is not required to

specifically mention § 3553(a) in sentencing defendant; relevant inquiry is whether

the court actually considered § 3553(a) factors and whether the appellate court’s

review of those factors leads to a conclusion that they support the reasonableness of

the district court’s sentencing decision). 

Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we

conclude there are no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

judgment, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3576 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/17/2006 Entry ID: 2079263