Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02800/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02800-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Jason Nathaniel Williamson
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2800

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Jason Nathaniel Williamson, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 5, 2007

Filed: November 8, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jason Nathaniel Williamson appeals the 235-month prison sentences the district

court1

 imposed after he pleaded guilty to bank robbery with a dangerous weapon, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), and money laundering, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i). His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentences, at the top of the

advisory Guidelines range, are unreasonable, because the court gave undue weight to

Appellate Case: 06-2800 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2007 Entry ID: 3371018
-2-

a robbery victim’s testimony as compared to Williamson’s mental illness and

sentenced him beyond what was minimally sufficient.

The presumption of reasonableness accorded a sentence within the Guidelines

range, see Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-68 (2007), may be rebutted by

showing that the district court failed to consider a factor that should have received

significant weight, gave significant weight to an irrelevant factor, or otherwise

committed a clear error of judgment, see United States v. Davidson, 437 F.3d 737, 741

(8th Cir. 2006). The record supports that the district court properly considered only

relevant factors, including the offense circumstances and Williamson’s extensive

criminal history, as well as his serious mental illness; and that the court did not

commit a clear error of judgment in choosing sentences at the top of the Guidelines

range. Thus, we conclude that the sentences are not unreasonable. See United States

v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review). 

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

find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment and

we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw on condition that counsel inform appellant

about the procedures for filing petitions for rehearing and for certiorari.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2800 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2007 Entry ID: 3371018