United States v. Nathan Smith, No. 16-3493 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Riley, Arnold and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's below-guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable. [ March 29, 2017
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-3493 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Nathan Adam Smith, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________ Submitted: March 21, 2017 Filed: March 30, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before RILEY, ARNOLD, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Nathan Smith challenges the district court’s1 below-Guidelines-range sentence imposed following his guilty plea to bank fraud. 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Smith’s sentence is substantively unreasonable because there is undue disparity between Smith’s sentence and the sentences imposed on his co-defendants. In a supplemental brief, Smith joins counsel in challenging the substantive reasonableness of his sentence based on the more favorable sentences that his co-defendants received. Having carefully reviewed the district court’s careful articulation at sentencing of the multiple factors that guided the court in fashioning an appropriate sentence, we conclude that the sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Miller, 57 F.3d 910, 917 (8th Cir. 2009). Further, we have reviewed the record as required by Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -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.
