Court Opinion

ID: 9840587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-19 16:00:42.166203+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:33.900645
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-1825
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                            v.

                                   Ronald Lee Robi

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

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

                          Submitted: September 14, 2023
                            Filed: September 19, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
                        ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Ronald Robi appeals the above-Guidelines-range sentence imposed by the
district court1 after he pled guilty to a firearms offense. His counsel has moved for

      1
      The Honorable Stephen H. Locher, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.
leave 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, 461-62 (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 significant
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. We note, however,
that the written judgment’s statement that Robi was adjudicated guilty of an offense
under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) conflicts, in part, with the plea colloquy, which indicated
Robi pled guilty to violating only 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We modify the judgment
in relevant part to reflect that Robi was not adjudicated guilty under section
922(g)(9). See 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (appellate court may modify any judgment brought
before it for review); United States v. Drapeau, 644 F.3d 646, 656 (8th Cir. 2011)
(oral pronouncement prevails over contrary judgment).

     Accordingly, we affirm the judgment as modified, and we grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw.
                    ______________________________

                                           -2-