Filed: Aug. 08, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 18-3684 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Wesley Warren Norris lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield _ Submitted: August 5, 2019 Filed: August 8, 2019 [Unpublished] _ Before SHEPHERD, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Wesley Norris directly appeals after he pled guilty to distributing chi
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 18-3684 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Wesley Warren Norris lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield _ Submitted: August 5, 2019 Filed: August 8, 2019 [Unpublished] _ Before SHEPHERD, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Wesley Norris directly appeals after he pled guilty to distributing chil..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 18-3684
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Wesley Warren Norris
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield
____________
Submitted: August 5, 2019
Filed: August 8, 2019
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Wesley Norris directly appeals after he pled guilty to distributing child
pornography and the district court1 sentenced him to a prison term within the
1
The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
calculated United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual range. His counsel has
moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California,
386
U.S. 738 (1967), raising as an issue whether the district court imposed a substantively
unreasonable prison term.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a
substantively unreasonable prison term. See United States v. Feemster,
572 F.3d 455,
461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing sentence under deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard and 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-