United States v. Gabriel Roubideaux, No. 22-2131 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Kelly, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not err in requiring defendant to pay restitution to the victim of his arson; the court properly applied Guidelines Sec. 2K1.4(a)(1)(B) in determining defendant's base offense level; the sentence imposed was substantively reasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-2131 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. Gabriel Roubideaux, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Central ____________ Submitted: October 12, 2022 Filed: October 27, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Gabriel Roubideaux appeals a sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to arson. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under 1 The Honorable Roberto Lange, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of South Dakota. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the restitution order, the guidelines calculation, and the reasonableness of the sentence. We conclude that the district court did not plainly err in ordering Roubideaux to pay $22,675 in restitution, as the government presented the investigator’s testimony, the victim’s sworn declaration outlining her losses, and photographs of the trailer home before and after the fire. See United States v. Clausen, 949 F.3d 1076, 1081 (8th Cir. 2020). The district court also did not err in applying a base offense level of 24, as the offense involved the destruction of a dwelling, and the guideline does not require specific intent to destroy a dwelling. See U.S.S.G. § 2K1.4(a)(1)(B). Finally, the court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as there is no indication that it overlooked a relevant 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). We have 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 and 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.
