Court Opinion

ID: 9388299
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-20 16:00:49.782457+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:19.629731
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eighth Circuit
                     ___________________________

                             No. 22-3622
                     ___________________________

                          United States of America

                     lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                        v.

                               Ken Trang Tran

                   lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                   ____________

                 Appeal from United States District Court
               for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
                               ____________

                         Submitted: April 17, 2023
                           Filed: April 20, 2023
                               [Unpublished]
                              ____________

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

PER CURIAM.
       Ken Tran appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded
guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed
a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging 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, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing
sentences for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse of discretion
standard; abuse of discretion occurs when the court fails to consider relevant factor,
gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commits a clear error
of judgment in weighing the appropriate factors); see also United States v. Mangum,
625 F.3d 466, 469-70 (8th Cir. 2010) (upward variance was reasonable where court
made individualized assessment based on facts presented).

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

      1
       The Honorable John A. Ross, United States District Court Judge for the
Eastern District of Missouri.

                                         -2-