United States v. Sean Lewis, No. 17-2136 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Murphy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not err in calculating the drug quantity or in imposing enhancements for aggravating role, vulnerable individual, and obstruction of justice; career-offender determination did not affect defendant's sentence; sentence was not substantively unreasonable; pro se arguments alleging breach of the plea agreement and challenging the imposition of an enhancement for possession of a firearm rejected.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2136 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Sean Tyree Lewis lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________ Submitted: March 1, 2018 Filed: March 9, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Sean Lewis directly appeals the district court’s1 judgment entered after he pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute a heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 1 The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. (b)(1)(C), and 846, and to being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Following careful review of the arguments raised in the brief filed by Lewis’s counsel pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we conclude (1) the district court’s findings with regard to the drug-quantity attribution and application of the aggravating-role, vulnerable-individual, and obstruction-of-justice adjustments were supported by the testimony at the sentencing hearing and were not clearly erroneous; (2) the determination that Lewis was a career offender did not affect his sentence; and (3) his sentence was not substantively unreasonable. Turning to Lewis’s pro se arguments, we find no error, plain or otherwise, with regard to application of the sentencing enhancement for his possession of a firearm, and no breach of the plea agreement by the government. Finally, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. The judgment of the district court is affirmed,2 and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________ 2 We have assumed without deciding that, under the circumstances of this appeal, the arguments are not precluded by the appeal waiver. See United States v. Valencia, 829 F.3d 1007, 1012 (8th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 838 (2017). -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.
