Filed: Jul. 03, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 13-3809 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Robert Joseph Church lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield _ Submitted: June 30, 2014 Filed: July 3, 2014 [Unpublished] _ Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Robert Church appeals after the district court1 imposed sentence o
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 13-3809 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Robert Joseph Church lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield _ Submitted: June 30, 2014 Filed: July 3, 2014 [Unpublished] _ Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Robert Church appeals after the district court1 imposed sentence on..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 13-3809
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Robert Joseph Church
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield
____________
Submitted: June 30, 2014
Filed: July 3, 2014
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Robert Church appeals after the district court1 imposed sentence on him upon
his guilty plea to a drug offense. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed
a brief under Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Having carefully reviewed the record in accordance with our duty under
Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no basis for a nonfrivolous challenge
to the conviction in this direct criminal appeal, and we also conclude that the sentence
is not unreasonable, see United States v. Feemster,
572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009)
(en banc) (appellate review of sentencing decision). Accordingly, we affirm.
As for counsel’s motion to withdraw, we conclude that allowing counsel to
withdraw at this time would not be consistent with the Eighth Circuit’s 1994
Amendment to Part V of the Plan to Implement the Criminal Justice Act of 1964. We
therefore deny counsel’s motion to withdraw as premature, without prejudice to
counsel refiling the motion upon fulfilling the duties set forth in the Amendment.
______________________________
1
The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
-2-