United States v. Matthew McCauley, No. 15-2364 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam. Before Loken, Bowman, and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - Anders. Within-Guidelines sentence is not substantively unreasonable and challenge to drug quantity is foreclosed by the stipulation in the sentencing agreement. [ November 09, 2015
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-2364 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Matthew James McCauley lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: November 4, 2015 Filed: November 10, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Matthew McCauley directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to federal drug and identity-theft charges. 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of McCauley’s sentence. In pro se supplemental briefs, McCauley additionally challenges the district court’s determination of the relevant drug quantity for Guidelines purposes. Upon careful review, we conclude that McCauley’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (abuse-of-discretion review). We further conclude that McCauley’s drug-quantity challenge is foreclosed because he stipulated to the drug quantity in a sentencing agreement, which was adopted by the district court. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993); United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir.1995). Finally, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. The judgment is affirmed, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -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.
