eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
 2022-02

United States v. Dustin Vanacker ( 2022 )


Menu:
 
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 21-2494
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Dustin Wayne Vanacker
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: February 2, 2022
Filed: February 9, 2022
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Dustin Wayne Vanacker appeals the below-Guidelines sentence the district
1
court imposed after he pleaded guilty to drug offenses. His counsel has moved for
1
The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.
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 abuse its
discretion in imposing Vanacker’s sentence, as the record shows the court considered
and discussed the appropriate statutory factors. See United States v. Feemster,
    572 F.3d 455
    , 461-62, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (in reviewing sentences, appellate
court first ensures no significant procedural error occurred, then considers substantive
reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard); United States v.
Stults,
    575 F.3d 834
    , 849 (8th Cir. 2009) (where court makes individualized
assessment based on facts presented, addressing defendant’s proffered information
in consideration of
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) factors, sentence is not unreasonable); cf.
United States v. Lazarski,
    560 F.3d 731
    , 733 (8th Cir. 2009) (when court imposes
below-Guidelines-range sentence, noting it is “nearly inconceivable” that court
abused its discretion in not varying downward still further).
Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio,
    488 U.S. 75
     (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant
counsel leave to withdraw, affirm the judgment of the district court, and deny as moot
Vanacker’s pending motion to appoint counsel.
______________________________
-2-