Court Opinion

ID: 9637251
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:01:25.083948+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:04.342341
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-1206
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                            v.

                                Garret Allen Horgdal

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

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

                            Submitted: August 14, 2023
                              Filed: August 22, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

       Garret Horgdal appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled
guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. His counsel moved to withdraw and

      1
      The Honorable Stephen H. Locher, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.
filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

       After careful review, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion
in sentencing Horgdal. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir.
2009) (en banc) (standard of review); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d
754, 760-61 (8th Cir. 2014) (presuming reasonable sentences within United States
Sentencing Guidelines Manual range). Further, having independently reviewed the
record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw and affirm.
                        ______________________________

                                          -2-