Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03405/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03405-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Ray Smith
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3405

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Michael Ray Smith, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 13, 2010

Filed: April 22, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Michael Ray Smith appeals the 24-month prison sentence the district court1

imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of firearms, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Counsel has moved to withdraw and filed

a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the court did not

properly consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and that the sentence was

unreasonable.

Appellate Case: 09-3405 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/22/2010 Entry ID: 3657291
-2-

We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion or impose an

unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.

2009) (en banc) (appellate court reviews for abuse of discretion, first ensuring that the

district court committed no significant procedural error, and then considering the

substantive reasonableness of the sentence). We find no indication that the court

overlooked or misapplied any relevant section 3553(a) factor, or gave significant

weight to an improper or irrelevant factor. See United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834,

849 (8th Cir. 2009) (sentence was not unreasonable where the record reflected that the

district court made an individualized assessment based on the facts presented and

specifically addressed the defendant’s proffered information in its consideration of the

sentencing factors), cert. denied, 559 U.S. ---, 130 S. Ct. 1309 (2010).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3405 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/22/2010 Entry ID: 3657291