United States v. Rodderick Goins, No. 17-2129 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam. Before Gruender, Bowman, and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - Anders. District court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. [ November 14, 2017
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2129 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Rodderick Goins lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: November 13, 2017 Filed: November 15, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Rodderick Goins directly appeals the within-guidelines sentence the district court imposed after he pled guilty to a firearms offense. His counsel has filed a brief 1 1 The Honorable James M. Moody Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning the reasonableness of Goins’s sentence. Counsel has also moved for leave to withdraw. Upon careful review,2 we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing the sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and noting that if the sentence is within the guidelines range, the appellate court may, but is not required to, apply a 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 leave to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________ 2 Goins pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that contained an appeal waiver, but we decline to enforce the appeal waiver. See United States v. Boneshirt, 662 F.3d 509, 515-16 (8th Cir. 2011). -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.
