Court Opinion

ID: 9369258
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-08 16:01:24.464999+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:13.870539
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                           For the Eighth Circuit
                       ___________________________

                               No. 22-3001
                       ___________________________

                            United States of America

                       lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                          v.

                     Charles Rouell, also known as Charley

                     lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                     ____________

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

                          Submitted: February 2, 2023
                            Filed: February 8, 2023
                                 [Unpublished]
                                ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

     Charles Rouell appeals after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute
methamphetamine. His counsel has moved 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 court1 did not err in
imposing the below-Guidelines sentence that Rouell received. See United States v.
Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); United States v. Moore, 581
F.3d 681, 684 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). The record reflects that the court properly
calculated the Guidelines range and considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and
there is no indication the court overlooked a relevant factor, or committed a clear
error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. Specifically, the court did not err in
characterizing Rouell as deeply involved in the conspiracy; and although the sentence
was longer than those of some of his codefendants, it was adequately justified based
on his role in the conspiracy and his significant criminal history. See United States
v. Farmer, 647 F.3d 1175, 1179 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Vasquez, 433 F.3d
666, 671 (8th Cir. 2006).

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

      1
      The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas.

                                         -2-