Filed: Oct. 20, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 14-1456 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Dwayne Appling lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo _ Submitted: October 14, 2014 Filed: October 20, 2014 [Unpublished] _ Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Dwayne Appling directly appeals the sentences imposed by the district court1 afte
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 14-1456 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Dwayne Appling lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo _ Submitted: October 14, 2014 Filed: October 20, 2014 [Unpublished] _ Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Dwayne Appling directly appeals the sentences imposed by the district court1 after..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 14-1456
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Dwayne Appling
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo
____________
Submitted: October 14, 2014
Filed: October 20, 2014
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Dwayne Appling directly appeals the sentences imposed by the district court1
after he pleaded guilty to drug offenses. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has
1
The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Northern District of Iowa.
filed a brief under Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the sentences
are unreasonable.
After careful review, we conclude that Appling’s within-Guidelines-range
sentences are not unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster,
572 F.3d 455, 461
(8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (appellate review of sentencing decision). Also, having
independently reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75,
80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion
to withdraw, and we affirm.
______________________________
-2-