United States v. Clyde Stewart, Jr., No. 22-2596 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Shepherd, and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's below-guidelines range was not substantively unreasonable. [ December 14, 2022 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-2596 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. Clyde Macks Stewart, Jr., lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern ____________ Submitted: December 12, 2022 Filed: December 15, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Clyde Stewart, Jr. appeals a sentence imposed by the district court1 after Stewart pleaded guilty to offenses involving drugs and firearms. His counsel has 1 The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the reasonableness of the sentence. We conclude that Stewart’s sentence was not substantively unreasonable. The court imposed a sentence below the advisory guideline range, see United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013), and there is no indication that the district court 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 also 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 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.
