Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-02364/USCOURTS-ca8-15-02364-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Matthew James McCauley
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-2364

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Matthew James McCauley

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________

 Submitted: November 4, 2015

Filed: November 10, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Matthew McCauley directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the

district court imposed after he pled guilty to federal drug and identity-theft charges. 

1

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

1

the Northern District of Iowa.

Appellate Case: 15-2364 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/10/2015 Entry ID: 4335179 
His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of McCauley’s

sentence. In pro se supplemental briefs, McCauley additionally challengesthe district

court’s determination of the relevant drug quantity for Guidelines purposes.

Upon careful review, we conclude that McCauley’s sentence is not

substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th

Cir. 2009) (en banc) (abuse-of-discretion review). We further conclude that

McCauley’s drug-quantity challenge is foreclosed because he stipulated to the drug

quantity in a sentencing agreement, which was adopted by the district court. See

United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993); United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d

781, 783 (8th Cir.1995). Finally, having independently reviewed the record pursuant

to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues.

The judgment is affirmed, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-2364 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/10/2015 Entry ID: 4335179