United States v. Jeremy Traxler, No. 16-2616 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Bowman and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The sentence was not substantively unreasonable. [ February 10, 2017
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-2616 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Jeremy Michael Traxler, also known as Geremy Traxler, also known as Ryan Lewis lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City ____________ Submitted: January 31, 2017 Filed: February 13, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jeremy Traxler appeals after he pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and the District Court1 sentenced him to 188 months in 1 The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. prison, the low end of the calculated United States Sentencing Guidelines range. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning the substantive reasonableness of Traxler’s sentence. After careful review, we conclude that the District Court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (explaining that the substantive reasonableness of a sentence should be reviewed for an abuse of discretion and noting that “[i]f the sentence is within the Guidelines range, the appellate court may . . . apply a presumption of reasonableness”). We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. We affirm the District Court and 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.
