Court Opinion

ID: 9891375
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-18 15:01:06.906908+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:02.686094
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-1396
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                            v.

                                     Krystle Owen

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

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

                            Submitted: October 13, 2023
                              Filed: October 18, 2023
                                   [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

       Krystle Owen appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence imposed by the
district court1 after she pled guilty to distribution of methamphetamine, in violation

      1
      The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas.
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). Her counsel has moved for 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 (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); see also United States v. White, 506 F.3d 635, 644-45 (8th Cir.
2007) (pursuant to § 3553(a), district court may consider factors already taken into
account in calculating advisory Guidelines range).

      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-