Court Opinion

ID: 9925384
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-19 17:00:46.792132+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:20.809458
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 23-2907
                        ___________________________

                            United States of America

                                      Plaintiff - Appellee

                                        v.

                                Martin Wilson, Jr.

                                    Defendant - Appellant
                                  ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
               for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau
                                  ____________

                           Submitted: January 10, 2024
                             Filed: January 19, 2024
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Martin Wilson appeals the Guidelines-range sentence the district court1
imposed after he pled guilty to a drug offense. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, this court affirms.

      1
       The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of Missouri.
      Counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). He argues that the sentence is substantively
unreasonable because the district court gave insufficient weight to Wilson’s history
and characteristics under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

       The district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. The
record reflects that the court adequately considered the section 3553(a) factors—
including all of the information Wilson presented for the court’s consideration—and
did not clearly err in weighing the factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d
455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to
consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or
commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factor); United States v.
Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009) (sentence is not unreasonable when court
made individualized assessment based on facts presented and addressed defendant's
proffered information in its consideration of § 3553(a) factors).

      The court has independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and finds no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

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

                                         -2-