Filed: Feb. 16, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 16-3348 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Kunta Laushan Brown lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines _ Submitted: February 14, 2017 Filed: February 16, 2017 [Unpublished] _ Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Kunta Brown directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imp
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 16-3348 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Kunta Laushan Brown lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines _ Submitted: February 14, 2017 Filed: February 16, 2017 [Unpublished] _ Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Kunta Brown directly appeals the sentence the district court1 impo..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-3348
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Kunta Laushan Brown
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines
____________
Submitted: February 14, 2017
Filed: February 16, 2017
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Kunta Brown directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he
pleaded guilty to drug and firearm charges. His counsel has moved to withdraw and
1
The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.
has filed a brief under Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning the
reasonableness of Brown’s sentence.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an
unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster,
572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir.
2009) (en banc) (explaining that sentences are reviewed under deferential abuse-of-
discretion standard and discussing substantive reasonableness). In addition, having
independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75 (1988),
we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion
to withdraw, and we affirm.
______________________________
-2-