United States v. Derrick Estell, No. 15-1699 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam. Before Gruender, Benton, and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - Anders. Statutory mandatory minimum sentence is not subject to review for reasonableness.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-1699 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Derrick Estell lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs ____________ Submitted: November 16, 2015 Filed: November 20, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Derrick Estell directly appeals after he pled guilty to two counts of brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, and the district court1 sentenced him 1 The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. to 32 years in prison. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Estell’s prison term is substantively unreasonable.2 Upon careful review, we conclude that counsel’s argument lacks merit because Estell’s prison term, representing the statutory minimum, is not subject to review for reasonableness. See United States v. Gregg, 451 F.3d 930, 937 (8th Cir. 2006). Furthermore, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________ 2 Counsel has also filed a letter pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j), citing Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). We conclude that the Johnson decision has no bearing on Estell’s convictions or sentence. -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.
