United States v. Tondrell Gary, Jr., No. 19-1971 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Shepherd and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable. [ December 11, 2019
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-1971 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Tondrell Darnez Gary, Jr. lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Waterloo ____________ Submitted: December 9, 2019 Filed: December 12, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Tondrell Gary appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to a firearm offense. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, 1 The Honorable C. J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was 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) (sentences are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under deferential 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). The record establishes that the district court adequately considered the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878, 887 (8th Cir. 2011) (court need not mechanically recite § 3553(a) factors, so long as it is clear from record that court actually considered them in determining sentence). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous 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.
