Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03648/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03648-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Ellison
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3648

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

David Ellison, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 2, 2006

Filed: November 3, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

David Ellison appeals the 33-month prison sentence the district court1

 imposed

after he pleaded guilty to one count of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344.

His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the court erred in sentencing Ellison to

imprisonment instead of placing him on home confinement so that he would be able

to continue working to pay restitution and support his family.

Appellate Case: 05-3648 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/03/2006 Entry ID: 2106412
-2-

We conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable: the district court properly

considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in sentencing Ellison at the bottom of the

Guidelines range, and nothing in the record rebuts the presumption that the sentence

is reasonable. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 260-64 (2005) (appellate

courts should review post-Booker sentences for unreasonableness; district courts must

consult Guidelines and take them into account when sentencing, along with other

§ 3553(a) factors); United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (sentence

within applicable Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable and burden is on

defendant to rebut that presumption), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005); United

States v. Tobacco, 428 F.3d 1148, 1151 (8th Cir. 2005) (presumption of

reasonableness can be rebutted if district court failed to consider relevant factor that

should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to improper or

irrelevant factor, or considered only appropriate factors but committed clear error of

judgment in weighing them).

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

find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment and

we grant counsel leave to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3648 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/03/2006 Entry ID: 2106412