United States v. Marquette Lawson, No. 20-1518 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Benton and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's within-guidelines range sentence was not substantively unreasonable. [ September 09, 2020 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-1518 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. Marquette Lamont Lawson, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: September 04, 2020 Filed: September 10, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Marquette Lawson appeals his sentence in a criminal case in which he pleaded guilty to failing to register as a sex offender. At sentencing, the district court1 granted 1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. the government’s motion for an upward departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a), and imposed a sentence within the resulting advisory sentencing guideline range. Lawson’s counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive 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. Jones, 639 F.3d 484, 488 (8th Cir. 2011). 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. ______________________________ -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.
