Filed: Jan. 10, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 18-1872 _ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. Adam E. Billings, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield _ Submitted: December 6, 2018 Filed: January 10, 2019 [Unpublished] _ Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Adam Billings directly appeals the sentence the district cour
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 18-1872 _ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. Adam E. Billings, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield _ Submitted: December 6, 2018 Filed: January 10, 2019 [Unpublished] _ Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Adam Billings directly appeals the sentence the district court..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 18-1872
___________________________
United States of America,
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,
v.
Adam E. Billings,
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield
____________
Submitted: December 6, 2018
Filed: January 10, 2019
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Adam Billings directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he
pleaded guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed
1
The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
a brief under Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as
substantively unreasonable. Billings has not filed a pro se brief.
After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an
unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a), and there is no indication that the court committed a clear error of
judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Salazar-Aleman,
741
F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review).
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 and affirm.
______________________________
-2-