Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01926/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01926-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven Stands
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the

District of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1926

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Steven Stands, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 3, 2007

Filed: January 10, 2007

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Steven Stands appeals the 14-month sentence the district court1

 imposed after

he pleaded guilty to knowingly and intentionally possessing marijuana with intent to

distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). His counsel has requested permission

to withdraw, filing a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

On appeal, Stands’s counsel questions whether the court abused its discretion

in sentencing Stands to 14 months in prison. We find that Stands’s sentence was not

Appellate Case: 06-1926 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/10/2007 Entry ID: 3266361
-2-

unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. at

220, 261-62 (2005) (appellate courts must review sentences for unreasonableness,

using § 3553(a) as guide). Stands’s sentence was within the undisputed Guidelines

range, and nothing in the record rebuts the presumption of reasonableness. See United

States v. Shepard, 462 F.3d 847, 875 (8th Cir.) (sentences within Guidelines are

presumptively reasonable; presumptively reasonable sentence may be found

unreasonable if sentencing court (1) failed to consider relevant factor that should have

received significant weight; (2) gave significant weight to improper or irrelevant

factor; or (3) considered only appropriate factors, but in weighing those factors

committed clear error of judgment (citations omitted)), cert. denied, 2006 WL

3245008 (Dec. 11, 2006) (No. 06-7647); United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716,

717-18 (8th Cir.) (defendant bears burden to rebut presumption of reasonableness),

cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005). Notably, the district court expressly considered

Stands’s criminal history and the circumstances of his offense. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a)(1) (factors include nature and circumstances of offense and history and

characteristics of defendant). We thus conclude that the district court did not abuse

its discretion in sentencing Stands to 14 months in prison. See United States v.

Mathis, 451 F.3d 939, 941 (8th Cir. 2006) (“Post-Booker, we review the ultimate

sentence imposed by the district court for reasonableness, which is akin to our

traditional abuse-of-discretion review.” (citation omitted)).

Having carefully reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no other nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the

judgment and grant counsel’s request to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1926 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/10/2007 Entry ID: 3266361