United States v. Travis Eaton, No. 14-3526 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Loken and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence was not substantively unreasonable. [ June 04, 2015
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-3526 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Travis James Eaton lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Ft. Dodge ____________ Submitted: June 3, 2015 Filed: June 5, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Travis James Eaton directly appeals the 234-month sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pled guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine as a 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. second felony drug offender, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and 851. In a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel argues that Eaton’s sentence was substantively unreasonable. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. After careful review, this court concludes the sentence was not substantively unreasonable. The district court thoroughly analyzed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; noted Eaton’s recidivism, failure to pursue drug rehabilitation, and possession of large amounts of high-quality methamphetamine and multiple weapons; and did not commit a clear error of judgment in weighing the sentencing factors. See United States v. Deering, 762 F.3d 783, 787 (8th Cir. 2014) (district court has wide latitude to weigh § 3553(a) factors and assign some factors greater weight than others in determining appropriate sentence); United States v. Salazar-Aleman, 741 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir. 2013) (under substantive review, district court abuses its discretion if it fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing factors); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (substantive review is narrow and deferential). This court notes that the extent of the district court’s departure is not reviewable on appeal. See Deering, 762 F.3d at 786. An independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), reveals no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________ -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.
