Filed: Oct. 11, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 17-1758 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Laquetta Hughes lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Waterloo _ Submitted: October 5, 2017 Filed: October 11, 2017 [Unpublished] _ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Laquetta Hughes directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 17-1758 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Laquetta Hughes lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Waterloo _ Submitted: October 5, 2017 Filed: October 11, 2017 [Unpublished] _ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Laquetta Hughes directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed a..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 17-1758
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Laquetta Hughes
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Waterloo
____________
Submitted: October 5, 2017
Filed: October 11, 2017
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Laquetta Hughes directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after
she pled guilty to a firearm charge. Her counsel has moved for leave to withdraw,
1
The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.
and has filed a brief under Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the
sentence is substantively unreasonable. Hughes has filed a pro se brief, also arguing
that her sentence is substantively unreasonable.
Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court did not impose
a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster,
572 F.3d 455,
461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions);
see also United States v. Callaway,
762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (on appeal,
within-Guidelines-range sentence may be presumed reasonable). In addition, we have
independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75 (1988), and
have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed,
and counsel is granted leave to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-