Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02804/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02804-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Aaron T. Fant
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Dean Whipple, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2804

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Aaron T. Fant, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 21, 2005

Filed: July 21, 2005

___________

Before SMITH, FAGG, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Aaron Fant appeals the 77-month prison sentence the district court1

 imposed

after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18

U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). Fant’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a

brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Fant’s sentence

is excessive. 

Appellate Case: 04-2804 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/21/2005 Entry ID: 1930908
-2-

Construing this argument as an Eighth Amendment challenge, we find that the

sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendment. See United States v. Farmer, 73

F.3d 836, 840 (8th Cir.) (only in very narrow circumstances has punishment within

statutory limits been held to violate Eighth Amendment; holding that life in prison

without parole under “three-strikes” law does not violate Eighth Amendment). 

Construing Fant's argument as a challenge to his sentence under United States

v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), we find that he has not demonstrated plain error

because there is nothing in the record to suggest that he would have received a more

favorable sentence under an advisory guideline system. See United States v. Pirani,

406 F.2d 543, 550, 552 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc).

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

(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw, and we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2804 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/21/2005 Entry ID: 1930908