Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-14-02903/USCOURTS-ca8-14-02903-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donald Richard Sheldon
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-2903

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Donald Richard Sheldon

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Dubuque

____________

 Submitted: February 13, 2015

 Filed: February 25, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Donald Sheldon directly appeals the sentence that the district court imposed

1

upon his guilty plea to a drug offense. His counsel moves to withdraw, and in a brief

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

1

the Northern District of Iowa.

Appellate Case: 14-2903 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/25/2015 Entry ID: 4247785 
filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), he argues that the sentence is

unreasonable.

Upon careful review, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8thCir.

2009) (en banc) (appellate review of sentencing decision), we conclude that the

sentence is not unreasonable: the district court carefully considered relevant

sentencing factors and did not commit a clear error in judgment in weighing the

factors, and sentenced Sheldon at the bottom of the undisputed Guidelines range, see

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (if sentence is within Guidelines range,

appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness); United States v. Bridges,

569 F.3d 374, 379 (8th Cir. 2009) (sentencing court has wide latitude to weigh 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and assign some factors greater weight than others). Further,

having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. 

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-2903 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/25/2015 Entry ID: 4247785