United States v. James Clark, No. 14-1794 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. District court adequately considered the 3553(a) factors, including defendant's mental health, and the sentence imposed was not unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-1794 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee, v. James Clark, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: October 17, 2014 Filed: November 17, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. James Clark directly appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence the district court imposed after he pled guilty to drug-conspiracy and gun charges. His counsel 1 1 The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the court procedurally erred by giving inadequate consideration to Clark’s mental-health issues, and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. In addition, counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court adequately considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, including Clark’s mental-health issues, and did not impose an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461(8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (describing appellate review of sentencing decisions); United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2009) (where district court varied downward from Guidelines range, it was “nearly inconceivable” that court abused its discretion in not varying downward further). Finally, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. As for counsel’s motion to withdraw, we conclude that allowing counsel to withdraw at this time would not be consistent with the Eighth Circuit’s 1994 Amendment to Part V of the Plan to Implement The Criminal Justice Act of 1964. We therefore deny counsel’s motion to withdraw as premature, without prejudice to counsel refiling the motion upon fulfilling the duties set forth in the Amendment. Judge Colloton would grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See United States v. Eredia, 578 F. App’x 620, 621 (8th Cir. 2014) (Colloton, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). ______________________________ -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.
