United States v. Melvin Henre, No. 08-3761 (8th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence was not unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 08-3761 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Melvin Dwayne Henre, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: November 13, 2009 Filed: November 16, 2009 ___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Melvin Henre pled guilty to threatening a federal law enforcement officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ยง 115(a)(1)(B). The district court1 sentenced him to 77 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the district court abused its discretion in sentencing Henre. 1 The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. We review the imposition of sentences under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, first ensuring that the district court committed no significant procedural error, and then considering the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (listing factors that constitute abuse of discretion). We find no abuse of discretion. The sentence imposed was at the bottom of the undisputed advisory Guidelines range, see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347-50 (2007), and we find no indication that Henre would be able to rebut the resulting presumption of reasonableness, see United States v. Cadenas, 445 F.3d 1091, 1094 (8th Cir. 2006). After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous 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.
