Court Opinion

ID: 9929376
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-02 16:03:13.560191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:07:00.790338
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 23-3166
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                             Leonard Deshawn Boyd

                      lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                      ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                    for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
                                  ____________

                           Submitted: January 26, 2024
                             Filed: February 2, 2024
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                        ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Leonard Deshawn Boyd appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after
he pleaded guilty to escaping from custody. His counsel has filed a brief under

      1
        The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence.

       We conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable
sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62, 464 (8th Cir. 2009)
(en banc) (substantive reasonableness of sentence is reviewed for abuse of
discretion). The court properly considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a), and there is no indication that the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave
significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of
judgment in weighing relevant factors. See id., 572 F.3d at 461-62; United States v.
Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009) (where district court makes individualized
assessment based on facts presented, addressing defendant’s proffered information
in its consideration of § 3553(a) factors, sentence is not unreasonable). Having
reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no
nonfrivolous issues.

      Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
                     ______________________________

                                         -2-