United States v. Douglas Biddle, No. 12-1558 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-1558 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Douglas Warren Biddle lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________ Submitted: September 27, 2012 Filed: October 1, 2012 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BYE, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Douglas Biddle challenges the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court imposed after he pled guilty to conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of 1 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine and 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 846. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Biddle s sentence is unreasonable and greater than necessary to effectuate the purposes of sentencing. Upon careful review, this court concludes that Biddle s sentence is not unreasonable. The district court thoroughly explained its chosen sentence, relied on and properly weighed appropriate sentencing factors only, and sentenced Biddle to a prison term that was within the calculated Guidelines range and the statutory limits. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 460-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (when reviewing sentences, appellate court applies deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, first ensuring that district court committed no significant procedural error such as failing to adequately explain chosen sentence; district court abuses its discretion when it fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or considers only appropriate factors but in weighing those factors commits clear error of judgment; substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard takes into account totality of circumstances; if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may, but is not required to, apply presumption of reasonableness); see also 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii) (person who violates 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) in case involving 50 grams or more of methamphetamine or 500 grams or more of mixture or substance containing methamphetamine shall be sentenced to not less than 10 years or more than life in prison). Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), this court finds no nonfrivolous issues. This court grants counsel leave to withdraw, and affirms. ______________________________ -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.
