United States v. James Trice, No. 13-3006 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence was not an abuse of the court's discretion or substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-3006 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee, v. James Thomas Trice, also known as Jay, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: March 26, 2014 Filed: April 29, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. James Trice directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to a drug-conspiracy charge and the district court1 varied downward to impose a sentence below the calculated 1 The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Guidelines range. Counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Trice. See United States v. Franik, 687 F.3d 988, 990 (8th Cir. 2012) (where defendant does not raise procedural error, court bypasses review and only reviews substantive reasonableness of sentence for abuse of discretion); see also United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2009) (where district court varied downward from Guidelines range, it was nearly inconceivable that court abused its discretion in not varying downward further). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Trice about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari. ______________________________ -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.
