United States v. Jeremiah Watson, No. 17-1197 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Murphy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a within-guidelines range sentence.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-1197 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Jeremiah J. Watson lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau ____________ Submitted: October 6, 2017 Filed: October 25, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Jeremiah Watson challenges the 120-month sentence the district court1 imposed upon re-sentencing, following its grant of relief 1 The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). His counsel has submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the court did not adequately consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Watson has filed a pro se brief raising the same argument as counsel. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Watson within the Guidelines range; in particular, the court did not commit an error of judgment in weighing the relevant sentencing factors. See United States v. Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878, 887 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Furthermore, 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 we 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.
