United States v. Ricardo Jefferson, No. 10-2163 (8th Cir. 2010)

 Annotate this Case

Court Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. District court committed no procedural error and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence.

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-2163 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Ricardo Jefferson, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: October 22, 2010 Filed: October 27, 2010 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Ricardo Jefferson appeals the 188-month prison sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to distributing more than 5 grams of a mixture or substance containing cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. ยงยง 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(iii). His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that Jefferson believes his sentence is too severe. 1 The Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. We conclude that the district court committed no procedural error and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (in reviewing sentence, appellate court first ensures that district court committed no significant procedural error, and then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard; if sentence is within applicable Guidelines range, appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005) (describing abuse of discretion). Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel s motion to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________ -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.