Filed: Jun. 05, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 16-3134 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Shawn Lee lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock _ Submitted: May 24, 2017 Filed: June 5, 2017 [Unpublished] _ Before SHEPHERD, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Shawn Lee directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled g
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 16-3134 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Shawn Lee lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock _ Submitted: May 24, 2017 Filed: June 5, 2017 [Unpublished] _ Before SHEPHERD, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Shawn Lee directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled gu..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-3134
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Shawn Lee
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock
____________
Submitted: May 24, 2017
Filed: June 5, 2017
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Shawn Lee directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he
pled guilty to possessing a prohibited object in prison, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
1
The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.
§ 1791(a)(2) and (d)(1)(B). His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief
under Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Lee’s sentence is
unreasonable.
After 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) (discussing appellate review of sentences; if sentence is within
Guidelines range, appellate court may apply, but is not required to apply, presumption
of reasonableness). Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson
v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
______________________________
-2-