United States v. Aldreias Campbell, No. 17-2491 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Loken and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not abuse its discretion by departing upward to take into account the number and severity of defendant's unscored convictions and his likelihood to recidivate; sentence was not substantively unreasonable. [ February 08, 2018
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2491 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Aldreias Campbell lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Waterloo ____________ Submitted: February 2, 2018 Filed: February 9, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Aldreias Campbell challenges the sentence the district court1 imposed following his guilty plea to a drug charge. On appeal, his 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court erred at sentencing by departing upward under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a), and that Campbell’s sentence is substantively unreasonable. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in departing upward, because it took into account the number and severity of Campbell’s unscored convictions, and his likelihood to recidivate, see U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a); United States v. Vasquez, 552 F.3d 734, 738 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review); and that the sentence was not substantively unreasonable, as the court properly considered and individually assessed several 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and there was no indication that it overlooked a relevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review). 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, 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.
