United States v. Donald Sheldon, No. 14-2903 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-2903 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Donald Richard Sheldon lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Dubuque ____________ Submitted: February 13, 2015 Filed: February 25, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Donald Sheldon directly appeals the sentence that the district court1 imposed upon his guilty plea to a drug offense. His counsel moves to withdraw, and in a brief 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), he argues that the sentence is unreasonable. Upon careful review, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (appellate review of sentencing decision), we conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable: the district court carefully considered relevant sentencing factors and did not commit a clear error in judgment in weighing the factors, and sentenced Sheldon at the bottom of the undisputed Guidelines range, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness); United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374, 379 (8th Cir. 2009) (sentencing court has wide latitude to weigh 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and assign some factors greater weight than others). Further, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________ -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.
