United States v. Mario Stevenson, No. 16-3726 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Riley, Murphy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-3726 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Mario Deshawn Stevenson lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo ____________ Submitted: April 26, 2017 Filed: May 1, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before RILEY, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Mario Stevenson directly appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug charge. His counsel has 1 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable and that the district court should have varied downward even further. Stevenson has not filed a pro se brief. We conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (describing appellate review of sentencing decisions); see also United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting that when district court has varied below Guidelines range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that court abused its discretion in not varying downward further). In addition, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion for leave 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.
