Filed: Jul. 31, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 18-3536 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Kevin DeHart lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith Division _ Submitted: July 29, 2019 Filed: July 31, 2019 [Unpublished] _ Before SHEPHERD, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Kevin DeHart directly appeals after he pled guilty to attempting to entice
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 18-3536 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Kevin DeHart lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith Division _ Submitted: July 29, 2019 Filed: July 31, 2019 [Unpublished] _ Before SHEPHERD, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Kevin DeHart directly appeals after he pled guilty to attempting to entice ..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 18-3536
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Kevin DeHart
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith Division
____________
Submitted: July 29, 2019
Filed: July 31, 2019
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Kevin DeHart directly appeals after he pled guilty to attempting to entice a
minor to engage in sexual activity, and the district court1 sentenced him to a prison
1
The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Arkansas.
term within the calculated Guidelines range. 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,
461–62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (sentences are reviewed under a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard; discussing substantive reasonableness). In addition,
having independently reviewed the record under 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-