Court Opinion

ID: 9908348
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-08 16:01:08.307453+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:08.786488
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 23-2493
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                          Bobby Joe Amescua Gray, II

                      lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                      ____________

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

                          Submitted: December 5, 2023
                            Filed: December 8, 2023
                                 [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Bobby Gray, II 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

      1
      The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas.
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 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). Further, the court imposed a
sentence below the Guidelines range. See United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119,
1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting that when the district court has varied below the
Guidelines range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that the court abused its discretion in
not varying further).

      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.
                      ______________________________

                                         -2-