Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02741/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02741-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Underwood
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. 09-2741

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

David Underwood, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 6, 2010

Filed: April 22, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

David Underwood appeals the 27-month sentence the district court1

 imposed

after he pleaded guilty to being a felon and unlawful user of cocaine in possession of

ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), (g)(3), and 924(a)(2). His

counsel has 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. In a pro se letter, Underwood asserts that his attorney

Appellate Case: 09-2741 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/22/2010 Entry ID: 3657276
-2-

misrepresented to him that his sentence would be reduced if he completed a prison

drug-treatment program.

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

district court committed no significant procedural error, and then considering

substantive reasonableness of 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 record reflected that district

court made individualized assessment based on facts presented and specifically

addressed defendant’s proffered information in its consideration of sentencing

factors), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1309 (2010). To the extent that Underwood’s pro se

filing raises an ineffective-assistance claim, we decline to address it on direct appeal.

See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006). 

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

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

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2741 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/22/2010 Entry ID: 3657276