Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-19-02807/USCOURTS-ca8-19-02807-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Antonio Gipson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-2807

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Antonio Gipson

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport

 ____________

 Submitted: February 10, 2020

Filed: February 24, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Antonio Gipson appeals the sentence the district court1imposed after he

pleaded guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed

1The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Southern District of Iowa.

Appellate Case: 19-2807 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/24/2020 Entry ID: 4883973
a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive

reasonableness of the sentence. 

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

substantively unreasonable sentence, as there is no indication that it overlooked a

relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factor, gave significant weight to an improper or

irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant

factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en

banc). Furthermore, the district court, which considered whether Gipson’s careeroffender classification overrepresented the seriousness of his criminal history and

ultimately imposed a sentence below the advisory guideline range, did not abuse its

discretion in declining to vary downward further still. See United States v.

McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013). Having independently reviewed the

record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolousissuesfor

appeal. 

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

withdraw. 

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 19-2807 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/24/2020 Entry ID: 4883973