Court Opinion

ID: 9368663
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-06 17:00:38.666401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:09.939870
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                           For the Eighth Circuit
                       ___________________________

                               No. 22-3042
                       ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                              Antonio Allen Donaby

                      lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                      ____________

                   Appeal from United States District Court
                 for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
                                 ____________

                           Submitted: January 25, 2023
                             Filed: February 6, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

      Antonio Donaby appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he
pleaded guilty to escaping from custody. His counsel has moved for leave to

      1
       The Honorable Stephen R. Clark, then United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Missouri, now Chief Judge.
withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
challenging the sentence. Donaby has filed a pro se brief also challenging the
sentence.

       Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a
substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455,
461-62 (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). The record establishes that the district court adequately
considered the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v.
Mays, 993 F.3d 607, 619 (8th Cir. 2021) (where issues are raised in sentencing
position papers and at the sentencing hearing, district court is presumed to have
considered them); United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (on
appeal, within-Guidelines-range 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 the judgment, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
                      ______________________________

                                         -2-