United States v. Metrick Jenkins, No. 17-1876 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Murphy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The court lacks authority to review the denial of a downward departure as the district court recognized its authority to depart and defendant raises no claim of unconstitutional motive; below-guidelines sentence was not an abuse of discretion and was not substantively unreasonable. [ October 23, 2017
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-1876 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Metrick Lawan Jenkins lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________ Submitted: October 2, 2017 Filed: October 24, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Metrick Lawan Jenkins directly appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to drug and firearm offenses. 1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. Jenkins’s 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 erred in denying a downward departure or variance based on overstatement of Jenkins’s criminal history. Jenkins has filed a pro se brief that appears to raise the same arguments. We lack authority to review the district court’s denial of a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b)(1) because the district court recognized its authority to depart, and Jenkins does not contend that the court had any unconstitutional motive. See United States v. Heath, 624 F.3d 884, 888 (8th Cir. 2010) (this court generally will not review decision not to grant downward departure, unless district court had unconstitutional motive or erroneously thought it was without authority to grant departure). To the extent Jenkins argues that the sentence is substantively unreasonable, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Salazar-Aleman, 741 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir. 2013) (under substantive reasonableness review, district court abuses its discretion if it fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing factors). 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.
