United States v. Patricia Williams, No. 07-3130 (8th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Thirty-month sentence at the bottom of the advisory guidelines range was not unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 07-3130 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Patricia D. Williams, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: February 6, 2009 Filed: February 25, 2009 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Patricia D. Williams pleaded guilty to wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The district court1 imposed a 30-month prison term, 3 years of supervised release, and restitution. On appeal, Williams s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), seeking to withdraw and arguing that the prison sentence is unreasonable in light of Williams s specific characteristics. 1 The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. We conclude that the 30-month sentence, which was at the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range, is not unreasonable. See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007); United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir. 2005). The district court expressly considered relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and nothing in the record suggests that the court misapplied those factors. See United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005). Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw on condition that counsel inform appellant about the procedures for filing petitions for rehearing and for certiorari. ______________________________ -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.
