United States v. Raymond Standafer, No. 16-4093 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Arnold and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence imposed upon the revocation of defendant's supervised release was not an abuse of the district court's discretion; no error in making defendant's sentence for the revocation and his new drug offense consecutive. [ July 10, 2017
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-4093 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Raymond Scott Standafer lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________ Submitted: July 5, 2017 Filed: July 11, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Raymond Standafer challenges the sentence the district court1 imposed upon his guilty plea to a drug offense, which he committed while on supervised release. 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court, in sentencing Mr. Standafer, abused its discretion by failing to give adequate consideration to his history of drug addiction, and by imposing consecutive prison terms for the drug offense and the revocation of supervised release. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Mr. Standafer, and in particular, we conclude that the court did not commit an error of judgment in weighing his drug addiction against other relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions under abuse-of-discretion standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors). We further conclude that the imposition of consecutive prison terms was proper. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 cmt. n.4(C) (recommending that sentence for instant offense be imposed consecutively to sentence imposed for revocation where defendant commits instant offense while serving period of supervised release). Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found 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.
