Court Opinion

ID: 9926296
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-24 16:01:55.948802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:41.678051
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-2892
                         ___________________________

                             United States of America

                                       Plaintiff - Appellee

                                         v.

                               Gina Denise Hendrix

                                    Defendant - Appellant
                                  ____________

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

                           Submitted: January 18, 2024
                             Filed: January 24, 2024
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

      Gina Hendrix received a 132-month sentence after she pleaded guilty to
conspiring to distribute methamphetamine and possessing it with intent to distribute.
See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846. An Anders brief suggests that the
sentence is substantively unreasonable. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967).
       We conclude otherwise. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461
(8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse
of discretion). The record establishes that the district court 1 sufficiently considered
the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not rely on an improper
factor or commit a clear error of judgment. See United States v. McDaniels, 19 F.4th
1065, 1067 (8th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (explaining that the district court has “wide
latitude to weigh the relevant sentencing factors” and “weighing [them] differently
than a defendant would have preferred does not alone justify reversal” (citation
omitted)).

       We have also independently reviewed the record and conclude that no other
non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988). We
accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel permission
to withdraw.
                       ______________________________

      1
       The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Iowa.
                                   -2-