United States v. Rachael Shackelford, No. 19-3180 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Gruender and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's within-guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-3180 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. Rachael Shackelford, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________ Submitted: July 20, 2020 Filed: July 27, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Rachael Shackelford appeals her sentence in a criminal case. She pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine, and the district court1 sentenced her within the advisory sentencing guideline range. Her counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the reasonableness of the sentence. After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a sentence within the advisory range. There is no indication that the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. The judgment of the district court is affirmed, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. -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.
