Court Opinion

ID: 6499344
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-12 16:00:23.317983+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:54:32.636415
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
         For the Eighth Circuit
     ___________________________

             No. 21-3838
     ___________________________

          United States of America

     lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                        v.

         Tavin Rodriguez Daudinot

   lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
      ___________________________

             No. 21-3862
     ___________________________

          United States of America

     lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                        v.

         Tavin Rodriguez Daudinot

   lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                   ____________

 Appeals from United States District Court
 for the Northern District of Iowa - Central
               ____________

          Submitted: June 29, 2022
            Filed: July 12, 2022
               [Unpublished]
               ____________
Before ERICKSON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

       In these consolidated appeals, Tavin Daudinot appeals the sentence the district
court1 imposed at his consolidated sentencing hearing after he pleaded guilty to being
a felon in possession of a firearm and his supervised release was revoked. His
counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was unreasonable.

       Upon careful review, we conclude that the sentence was not unreasonable, as
the record shows that the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, see
United States v. Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878, 887 (8th Cir. 2011), and there is no
indication that the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an
improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the
relevant factors, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62, 464 (8th Cir.
2009) (en banc) (sentences are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under
deferential abuse of discretion standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails
to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor,
or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors); United States
v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-18 (8th Cir. 2009) (substantive reasonableness of
revocation sentence is reviewed under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard); see
also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (on appeal,
within-Guidelines sentence may be presumed reasonable).

      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, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
                       ______________________________

      1
        The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa.

                                          -2-