United States v. Christopher Sutphin, No. 16-1590 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Arnold and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Criminal case -Sentencing. Anders case. The district court's determination that a within-guidelines sentence would not accomplish the sentencing objectives was not an abuse of that court's discretion, and defendant's above-guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable. [ September 15, 2016
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-1590 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Christopher Sutphin lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________ Submitted: September 7, 2016 Filed: September 16, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Christopher Sutphin directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, and the district court1 sentenced him to an 1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. above-Guidelines-range prison term of 96 months. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that the court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. Having reviewed the district court’s sentencing decision, we conclude that no abuse of discretion occurred and that Sutphin’s 96-month prison term is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (describing appellate review of sentencing decisions); see also United States v. Franik, 687 F.3d 988, 991 (8th Cir. 2012) (factors that have already been taken into account in calculating advisory Guidelines range can nevertheless form basis of variance; concluding that no abuse of discretion occurred where district court found Guidelines would not accomplish objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) without upward variance); United States v. Mangum, 625 F.3d 466, 469-70 (8th Cir. 2010) (upward variance is reasonable where court makes individualized assessment of § 3553(a) factors based on facts presented, and considers defendant’s proffered information). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________
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.
