Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01442/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01442-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mishan Bradford
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

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

the Northern District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1442

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Northern

* District of Iowa.

Mishan Bradford, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 2, 2010

Filed: March 16, 2010

___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Mishan Bradford challenges the 96-month prison

term the district court1

 imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon and unlawful

user of controlled substances in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 922(g)(1) and (3), and 924(a)(2). His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a

brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the court erred in

departing upward by one criminal history category under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a)

Appellate Case: 09-1442 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/16/2010 Entry ID: 3644778
-2-

(understatement of criminal history), and that the sentence is substantively

unreasonable. 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 Bradford was a recidivist whose criminal history category did not accurately

reflect his recidivism. 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 have also reviewed the sentence for substantive reasonableness. Under the

highly discretionary standard of Gall v. U.S., 552 U.S. 38, 128 S. Ct. 586 (2007), we

have no difficulty finding the sentence to be reasonable. The district court adequately

considered and explained the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors that guided its

determination. Given Bradford's lengthy criminal history, the district court did not

abuse its discretion in imposing a 96 month sentence.

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.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-1442 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/16/2010 Entry ID: 3644778