United States v. Venus Ford, No. 17-3367 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Colloton and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's below-guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable. [ June 07, 2018
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-3367 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Venus M. Ford lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - El Dorado ____________ Submitted: June 5, 2018 Filed: June 8, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this direct appeal, Venus Ford, who pled guilty to conspiracy to defraud the government and aggravated identity theft, challenges the below-Guidelines sentence the district court1 imposed on the conspiracy count, and the consecutive mandatory sentence the court imposed on the identity theft count. See 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), (b)(2) (requiring a 2-year prison term for aggravated identity theft, consecutive to any other term of imprisonment imposed). Her counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Ford’s sentence is substantively unreasonable, and that the court should have varied downward further. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing reasonableness of sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard); see also United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (when district court has varied downward from Guidelines range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that the court abused its discretion in not varying downward further); United States v. Pamperin, 456 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2006) (district court lacks discretion to impose sentence below mandatory minimum). Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. -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.
