Filed: Feb. 09, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 17-2372 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Johnny Wayne Callen lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Harrison _ Submitted: February 6, 2018 Filed: February 9, 2018 [Unpublished] _ Before BENTON, MURPHY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Johnny Callen directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 17-2372 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Johnny Wayne Callen lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Harrison _ Submitted: February 6, 2018 Filed: February 9, 2018 [Unpublished] _ Before BENTON, MURPHY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Johnny Callen directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence ..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 17-2372
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Johnny Wayne Callen
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Harrison
____________
Submitted: February 6, 2018
Filed: February 9, 2018
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, MURPHY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Johnny Callen directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the
district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to enticing a minor to engage in sexual
1
The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Western District of Arkansas.
activity. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under
Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is substantively
unreasonable.
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 (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’s motion to withdraw is granted.
______________________________
-2-