United States v. Michael McGuire, No. 21-2758 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Stras, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable and the district court did not err in imposing a fine.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 21-2758 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Michael Shawn McGuire lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern ____________ Submitted: May 16, 2022 Filed: May 19, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Michael McGuire received a 120-month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty to four counts of cyberstalking. See 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2). An Anders brief suggests that the sentence is substantively unreasonable and that he should not have received a fine. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). A pro se supplemental brief raises two other issues. Neither the sentence nor the fine poses a problem. The record establishes that the district court1 sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461–62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). The record further establishes that the district court did not clearly err when it found that McGuire was “able to pay [the] fine.” United States v. Allmon, 500 F.3d 800, 807 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(a)). McGuire’s pro se arguments fare no better. He forfeited his double-jeopardy argument when he pleaded guilty, see United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 571 (1989); and there has been no impermissible double counting, see United States v. Jones, 951 F.3d 918, 919 –20 (8th Cir. 2020). Finally, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude that no other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82 –83 (1988). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel permission to withdraw. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. -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.
