United States v. Dennis Myers , 587 F. App'x 997 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 14-2243
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Dennis W. Myers
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
    ____________
    Submitted: December 10, 2014
    Filed: December 22, 2014
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Dennis Myers directly appeals the sentences that the district court1 imposed
    after he pleaded guilty to sex offenses. His counsel seeks leave to withdraw, and has
    1
    The Honorable Greg Kays, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the
    Western District of Missouri.
    filed a brief under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), arguing that the district
    court abused its discretion in varying upward from the calculated Guidelines range
    to impose the statutory maximum sentences. Myers has moved for the appointment
    of new counsel.
    Upon careful review, see United States v. Feemster, 
    572 F.3d 455
    , 461 (8th Cir.
    2009) (en banc) (abuse-of-discretion review of sentencing decision), we conclude that
    the sentences are not unreasonable. The district court considered the extensive
    evidence and arguments presented by both sides at the sentencing hearing, and
    explicitly, carefully, and at length explained the court’s reasons for varying upward
    under the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) as applied to Myers. See United
    States v. Richart, 
    662 F.3d 1037
    , 1051 (8th Cir. 2011) (upholding upward variance
    to statutory maximum and imposition of consecutive sentences); United States v.
    Mangum, 
    625 F.3d 466
    , 470 (8th Cir. 2010) (upward variance is reasonable where
    district court makes individualized assessment of § 3553(a) factors). Further, having
    independently reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    ,
    80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues.
    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. We also grant counsel leave to
    withdraw, and we deny as moot the motion for appointment of new counsel.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-2243

Citation Numbers: 587 F. App'x 997

Filed Date: 12/22/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023