Court Opinion

ID: 9900810
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-20 16:01:14.36869+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:18.345312
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-2426
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                            v.

                               Richard Patrick Horton

                        lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                        ____________

                      Appeal from United States District Court
                 for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
                                  ____________

                           Submitted: November 15, 2023
                             Filed: November 20, 2023
                                   [Unpublished]
                                   ____________

Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Richard Horton appeals the statutory-maximum sentence imposed by the
district court1 after he pled guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has moved for leave

      1
      The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas.
to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

       Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a
substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors
listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (substantive
reasonableness of sentence reviewed for abuse of discretion; abuse of discretion
occurs when district court fails to consider relevant factor, gives insignificant weight
to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing
appropriate factors).

      We have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
                      ______________________________

                                          -2-