United States v. Christin Barnes, No. 17-2952 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Benton, Murphy and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Below-Guidelines range sentence was not substantively unreasonable. [ March 21, 2018
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2952 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Christin Isaiah Barnes, also known as Christin Barnes-Sewell, also known as Christin Sewell-Barnes lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau ____________ Submitted: March 18, 2018 Filed: March 22, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Christin Barnes directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to methamphetamine distribution offenses, and the district court1 sentenced him below the calculated Guidelines range. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), suggesting that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. SalazarAleman, 741 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir. 2013) (discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions); see also United States v. Torres-Ojeda, 829 F.3d 1027, 1030 (8th Cir. 2016) (where defendant was sentenced below advisory Guidelines range, it is nearly inconceivable that district court abused its discretion in not varying downward still further). 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. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. -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.
