United States v. Carl Reeder, No. 15-1424 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Loken and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence was not substantively unreasonable. [ July 01, 2015
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-1424 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Carl S. Reeder lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: July 2, 2015 Filed: July 2, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Carl Reeder directly appeals after he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition, and the district court1 sentenced him below the calculated Guidelines 1 The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. range. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. This court concludes that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. The court specifically referenced several of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and there is no indication that the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); see also United States v. Moore, 581 F.3d 681, 683 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (“[W]here a district court has sentenced a defendant below the advisory guidelines range, it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not varying downward still further.”). An independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), reveals no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________ -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.
