United States v. Christopher Heffner, No. 16-4073 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Murphy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. No error in imposing an enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) - see U.S. v. Walker, 771 F.3d 449 (8th Cir. 2014); within-guidelines-range sentence was not substantively unreasonable. [ October 25, 2017
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-4073 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Christopher Montreal Heffner lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Waterloo ____________ Submitted: October 18, 2017 Filed: October 26, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Christopher Montreal Heffner directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, and the district court1 sentenced him within the 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. calculated Guidelines range. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court erroneously applied an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. We conclude that Heffner’s arguments challenging the section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement are foreclosed by this court’s precedents. See, e.g., United States v. Walker, 771 F.3d 449, 452-53 (8th Cir. 2014). We further conclude that Heffner’s within-Guidelines-range sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions; if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may, but is not required to, apply presumption of reasonableness). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, 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.
