United States v. Lloyd Davenport ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 20-2923
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Lloyd Davenport
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
    ____________
    Submitted: April 9, 2021
    Filed: April 14, 2021
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before SHEPHERD, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Lloyd Davenport appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he
    pleaded guilty to drug offenses. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and
    1
    The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
    the Southern District of Iowa.
    has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), arguing that the
    sentence was unreasonable.
    Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a
    substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors
    listed in 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See
    United States v. Feemster, 
    572 F.3d 455
    , 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (sentences are
    reviewed for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse of discretion
    standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives
    significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment
    in weighing appropriate factors). Further, the court imposed a sentence below the
    Guidelines range. See United States v. McCauley, 
    715 F.3d 1119
    , 1127 (8th Cir.
    2013) (noting that when district court has varied below Guidelines range, it is “nearly
    inconceivable” that court abused its discretion in not varying downward further).
    We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
     (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
    affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-2923

Filed Date: 4/14/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/14/2021