United States v. Allen Gailliot, No. 16-4572 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's below-guidelines sentence is not substantively unreasonable. [ July 24, 2017
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-4572 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Allen Dwight Gailliot lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________ Submitted: July 19, 2017 Filed: July 25, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Allen Gailliot directly appeals after he pled guilty to a drug offense and the district court1 sentenced him to a prison term below the calculated Guidelines range. 1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Gailliot’s sentence is substantively unreasonable. 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 are reviewed under deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard; discussing substantive reasonableness); 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, 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 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.
