United States v. Venus Ford ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 17-3367
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Venus M. Ford
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Western District of Arkansas - El Dorado
    ____________
    Submitted: June 5, 2018
    Filed: June 8, 2018
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    In this direct appeal, Venus Ford, who pled guilty to conspiracy to defraud the
    government and aggravated identity theft, challenges the below-Guidelines sentence
    the district court1 imposed on the conspiracy count, and the consecutive mandatory
    sentence the court imposed on the identity theft count. See 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1),
    (b)(2) (requiring a 2-year prison term for aggravated identity theft, consecutive to any
    other term of imprisonment imposed). Her counsel has moved to withdraw and has
    filed a brief under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), arguing that Ford’s
    sentence is substantively unreasonable, and that the court should have varied
    downward further.
    Upon careful review, 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 reasonableness of sentence under deferential
    abuse-of-discretion standard); see also United States v. McCauley, 
    715 F.3d 1119
    ,
    1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (when district court has varied downward from Guidelines
    range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that the court abused its discretion in not varying
    downward further); United States v. Pamperin, 
    456 F.3d 822
    , 824 (8th Cir. 2006)
    (district court lacks discretion to impose sentence below mandatory minimum).
    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, and we affirm.
    ______________________________
    1
    The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States District Judge for the Western
    District of Arkansas.
    -2-