United States v. Herman Baylor, No. 16-4546 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Bowman and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Any error in determining defendant's base offense level was harmless in light of the court's statements at sentencing; no error in applying adjustments of acceptance of responsibility and obstruction of justice; the sentence imposed was not substantively unreasonable. [ October 13, 2017
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-4546 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Herman Terrill Baylor lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________ Submitted: October 4, 2017 Filed: October 16, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Herman Baylor appeals after he pleaded guilty to a felon-in-possession offense and the District Court1 sentenced him below the advisory United States Sentencing 1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. Guidelines range. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the District Court applied an incorrect base offense level in its Guidelines calculations, improperly applied obstruction-of-justice and acceptance-of-responsibility adjustments, and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. We conclude that any error by the District Court in determining Baylor’s base offense level was harmless in light of that court’s statements at sentencing. See United States v. Henson, 550 F.3d 739, 741 (8th Cir. 2008) (noting that procedural errors in determining an advisory Guidelines sentencing range are subject to harmless-error analysis and “that a significant procedural error can be harmless”), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1270 (2009). We further conclude that the District Court did not err in applying the challenged adjustments, see United States v. Calderon-Avila, 322 F.3d 505, 507 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (standards of review), and did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (discussing substantive reasonableness). We have independently reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. We affirm Baylor’s sentence 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.
