United States v. Kevin Williams, No. 17-3356 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Colloton and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's below-advisory Guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-3356 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Kevin Kunlay Williams, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: July 20, 2018 Filed: August 15, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Kevin Kunlay Williams directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district court after he pleaded guilty to fraud and immigration offenses. His counsel has 1 1 The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, Chief Judge, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the sentence is substantively unreasonable. Williams has moved to proceed pro se. After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. The sentence was below the advisory Guideline range. The court properly considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and there is no indication that the court 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); see also United States v. Torres-Ojeda, 829 F.3d 1027, 1030 (8th Cir. 2016). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion, deny Williams’s pro se 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.
