Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03590/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03590-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Joseph L. Young
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3590

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Joseph L. Young, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 12, 2007

Filed: October 17, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Young (Young) appeals the 235-month prison sentence the district

court1

 imposed after he pled guilty to conspiring to distribute 50 grams or more of a

mixture or substance containing cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

(b)(1)(A) and 846. Young’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the sentence is unreasonable.

Appellate Case: 06-3590 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/17/2007 Entry ID: 3362730
-2-

We conclude Young’s advisory Guidelines imprisonment range was correctly

determined by the district court, and his sentence at the bottom of that range is not

unreasonable. See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-68 (2007) (allowing

appellate presumption of reasonableness); United States v. Denton, 434 F.3d 1104,

1113 (8th Cir. 2006) (holding a within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively

reasonable). The district court stated it had considered all of the statutory goals of

sentencing, and it mentioned several specific factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Moreover, nothing in the record indicates the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave

significant weight to an improper factor, or made a clear error of judgment in

imposing the sentence. See United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir.

2005) (stating the factors used to review a sentence for reasonableness). After

reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we

find no nonfrivolous issues.

We grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3590 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/17/2007 Entry ID: 3362730