Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-16-01927/USCOURTS-ca8-16-01927-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Deryl Lamar Abram
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-1927

___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Deryl Lamar Abram,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________

 Submitted: December 7, 2016

Filed: December 13, 2016 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, MURPHY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

After pleading guilty to drug charges, Deryl Abram appeals the district court’s

1

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

The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, Chief Judge, United States District Court 1

for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Appellate Case: 16-1927 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/13/2016 Entry ID: 4478911 
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). He argues that Abram’s plea was not voluntary or

knowingly entered, that the district court procedurally erred in calculating the

applicable base offense level, and the sentence was unreasonable. 

We conclude the argument that Abram’s plea was not voluntarily and

knowingly entered is not cognizable on direct appeal because he did not move in the

district court to withdraw his guilty plea. See United States v. Foy, 617 F.3d 1029,

1033-34 (8th Cir. 2010). Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in

sentencing Abram. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir.

2009) (en banc). The court committed no procedural error, as counsel’s objection to

the factual predicate in the PSR was sustained, and the offense level was re-calculated

accordingly, see U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(11). The sentence was not substantively

unreasonable, as within-Guidelines-range sentences may be presumed reasonable, see

United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014), and the district court

imposed the sentence after considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, see United

States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 917 (8th Cir. 2009). We have also independently

reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found

no non-frivolous issues.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed and counsel’s motion is granted.

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 16-1927 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/13/2016 Entry ID: 4478911