United States v. Kimberly Edwards, No. 17-1389 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Loken and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-1389 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Kimberly A. Edwards, also known as Kimberly Edwards lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________ Submitted: December 6, 2017 Filed: December 11, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Kimberly Edwards directly appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1 imposed after she pled guilty to participating in a drug conspiracy. Her 1 The Honorable Michael Melloy, United States Circuit Judge, sitting by designation as United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning the reasonableness of Edwards’s sentence. Having considered Edwards’s arguments, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard); see also United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2009) (where district court varied downward from Guidelines range, it was “nearly inconceivable” that court abused its discretion in not varying further). In addition, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. The judgment is affirmed. ______________________________ -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.
