United States v. Shawn Williams, No. 16-2269 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Murphy and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-2269 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Shawn A. Williams lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau ____________ Submitted: December 28, 2016 Filed: January 6, 2017 ____________ Before COLLOTON, MURPHY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Shawn Williams directly appeals after he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and the district court1 sentenced him to 51 months in prison, which was the low end of the calculated 1 The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. Guidelines range. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning the reasonableness of Williams’s sentence. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (sentences reviewed under deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard; discussing substantive reasonableness); see also Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness). In addition, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. 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.
