United States v. Jervonz Williams, No. 13-1768 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-1768 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Jervonz L. Williams lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: November 21, 2013 Filed: November 29, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jervonz Williams appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1 The Honorable Beth Phillips, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), and the court determined that he qualified as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). On appeal, Williams s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), suggesting that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. Upon careful review, we conclude that Williams s within-Guidelines-range sentence is not substantively unreasonable, as nothing in the record indicates that the court failed to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or considered only appropriate factors but in weighing those factors committed a clear error of judgment. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness); see also United States v. Gant, 721 F.3d 505, 511 (8th Cir. 2013) (on substantive review, district court abuses its discretion when it fails to consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or considers only appropriate factors but in weighing those factors commits clear error of judgment). Having independently reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Williams about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition 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.
