United States v. Charles Johnson, No. 17-1974 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Benton, Murphy and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's within-guidelines sentence was not a procedurally or substantively unreasonable sentence.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-1974 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Charles Johnson lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: February 6, 2018 Filed: February 9, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, MURPHY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Charles Johnson appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court imposed after he pled guilty to conspiring to interfere with commerce by 1 1 The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. robbery, and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), discussing the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a procedurally or substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 460-61 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; discussing procedural and substantive reasonableness); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (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.
