United States v. Antonio Gipson, No. 19-2807 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Beam and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's sentence is not substantively unreasonable, and the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant an even greater downward variance. [ February 21, 2020 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-2807 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Antonio Gipson lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________ Submitted: February 10, 2020 Filed: February 24, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Antonio Gipson appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as there is no indication that it overlooked a relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Furthermore, the district court, which considered whether Gipson’s careeroffender classification overrepresented the seriousness of his criminal history and ultimately imposed a sentence below the advisory guideline range, did not abuse its discretion in declining to vary downward further still. See United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), 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.
