United States v. Casey Westerfield, No. 22-2839 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Gruender, and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. [ December 29, 2022 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-2839 ___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff Appellee v. Casey Fontaine Westerfield Defendant Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern ____________ Submitted: December 27, 2022 Filed: December 30, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Casey Westerfield appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a gun offense. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has 1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable. Having reviewed the record under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard of review, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 (2007), we conclude the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. The court considered the statutory sentencing factors and did not overlook a relevant factor, give significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commit a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); see also United States v. Dunn, 928 F.3d 688, 694 (8th Cir. 2019). We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment 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.
