Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03446/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03446-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy J. Lange
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3446

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Northern

* District of Iowa.

Timothy J. Lange, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 29, 2010

Filed: May 4, 2010

___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Timothy J. Lange challenges the 51-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) and 924(a)(2). His

counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the court erred in departing upward by three criminal

history categories under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a) (understatement of criminal history), and

1

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

the Northern District of Iowa. 

Appellate Case: 09-3446 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/04/2010 Entry ID: 3661068
that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. In his pro se supplemental brief,

Lange argues that the court erred in departing upward under section 4A1.3. For the

following reasons, we affirm. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in departing upward. The court

adequately explained its decision and considered appropriate factors in concluding

that Lange was a recidivist whose criminal history category did not accurately reflect

his recidivism and who had received relatively lenient sentences throughout his

extensive criminal history. See United States v. Gonzalez, 573 F.3d 600, 605-07 (8th

Cir. 2009) (no abuse of discretion in departing upward under § 4A1.3(a) where court

considered appropriate factors and adequately explained decision). We also conclude

that the court did not abuse its discretion by imposing an unreasonable sentence: the

court noted that it had considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, specifically

discussed several of the factors, and entertained defense arguments for a lower

sentence. We find no indication in the record that the court overlooked a relevant

factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or misapplied the

factors. See United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005). 

Finally, having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 09-3446 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/04/2010 Entry ID: 3661068