Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-14-03526/USCOURTS-ca8-14-03526-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Travis James Eaton
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-3526

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Travis James Eaton

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Ft. Dodge

____________

 Submitted: June 3, 2015

Filed: June 5, 2015 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Travis James Eaton directly appeals the 234-month sentence imposed by the

district court1

 after he pled guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine as a

1

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

the Northern District of Iowa.

Appellate Case: 14-3526 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/05/2015 Entry ID: 4282507 
second felony drug offender, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and 851. In

a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel argues that

Eaton’s sentence was substantively unreasonable. Having jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

After careful review, this court concludes the sentence was not substantively

unreasonable. The district court thoroughly analyzed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors;

noted Eaton’s recidivism, failure to pursue drug rehabilitation, and possession of large

amounts of high-quality methamphetamine and multiple weapons; and did not commit

a clear error of judgment in weighing the sentencing factors. See United States v.

Deering, 762 F.3d 783, 787 (8th Cir. 2014) (district court has wide latitude to weigh

§ 3553(a) factors and assign some factors greater weight than others in determining

appropriate sentence); United States v. Salazar-Aleman, 741 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir.

2013) (under substantive review, district court abuses its discretion if it fails to

consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or

commits clear error of judgment in weighing factors); United States v. Feemster, 572

F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (substantive review is narrow and deferential). 

This court notes that the extent of the district court’s departure is not reviewable on

appeal. See Deering, 762 F.3d at 786. An independent review of the record under

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), reveals no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-3526 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/05/2015 Entry ID: 4282507