United States v. Thomas Appleby, No. 10-1973 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal Case - Anders. Below-Guidelines-range sentence of 33 months was not an abuse of the district court's substantial sentencing discretion.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-1973 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Thomas Dean Appleby, Appellant. * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: September 7, 2010 Filed: September 9, 2010 ___________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Thomas Dean Appleby pleaded guilty to distributing cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). The district court1 determined that Appleby was entitled to safety-valve relief from the statutory minimum sentence, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f); explained the sentencing factors it had considered; and imposed a belowGuidelines-range sentence of 33 months in prison. On appeal, Appleby s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), maintaining that the sentence imposed was unreasonable because it was longer than 1 The HONORABLE LINDA R. READE, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. necessary to achieve the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and because the disparity between sentences for cocaine base and powder cocaine offenses was inadequately considered. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the sentence imposed was not an abuse of the district court s substantial sentencing discretion. See United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Finding no nonfrivolous issue for appeal, see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we affirm the judgment and grant counsel s motion to withdraw conditioned on counsel informing Appleby about the procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for a writ of 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.
