United States v. Antonio Thomas, No. 16-4524 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Benton, Murphy and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Claim of Rule 11(b)(1)(B)error rejected; defendant's within-Guidelines range sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-4524 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Antonio Deshawn Thomas lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________ Submitted: February 6, 2018 Filed: February 14, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, MURPHY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Antonio Thomas directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to drug and firearm offenses. His counsel 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that an error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(B) occurred during the change-of-plea hearing, and that Thomas’s sentence was substantively unreasonable. Upon careful review, we conclude that no plain error occurred, see United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 76 (2004) (plain-error standard applies where Rule 11 omission was not preserved by timely objection; defendant must show that, but for such omission, he would not have entered plea); and that Thomas’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; discussing substantive reasonableness); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (on appeal, within-Guidelines-range sentence is presumed reasonable). In addition, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm. ______________________________ -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.
