U.S. v. EDWARDS, 17-1389. (2017)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Number: infco20171211088
Visitors: 18
Filed: Dec. 11, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 11, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM . Kimberly Edwards directly appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence the district court 1 imposed after she pled guilty to participating in a drug conspiracy. Her counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning the reasonableness of Edwards's sentence. Having considered Edwards's arguments, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. See United States
Summary: UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM . Kimberly Edwards directly appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence the district court 1 imposed after she pled guilty to participating in a drug conspiracy. Her counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning the reasonableness of Edwards's sentence. Having considered Edwards's arguments, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. See United States v..
More
UNPUBLISHED
PER CURIAM.
Kimberly Edwards directly appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1 imposed after she pled guilty to participating in a drug conspiracy. Her counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning the reasonableness of Edwards's sentence.
Having considered Edwards's arguments, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard); see also United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2009) (where district court varied downward from Guidelines range, it was "nearly inconceivable" that court abused its discretion in not varying further). In addition, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw. The judgment is affirmed.
FootNotes
1. The Honorable Michael Melloy, United States Circuit Judge, sitting by designation as United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.
Source: Leagle
