United States v. Roger Willis, No. 17-3410 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Colloton and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not err in concluding defendant violated his supervised release based on his constructive possession of methamphetamine; the within-guidelines sentence imposed was not an abuse of the district court's discretion. [ May 11, 2018
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-3410 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Roger Lee Willis, also known as Bo Willis lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith ____________ Submitted: May 9, 2018 Filed: May 14, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Roger Lee Willis appeals the district court’s1 order revoking his supervised release and imposing a 24-month sentence. His counsel has moved for leave to 1 The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. withdraw, and has submitted a brief raising issues as to whether the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he possessed methamphetamine, and that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Willis had constructive possession of methamphetamine based on the evidence presented. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Willis, as it properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; 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. Johnson, 827 F.3d 740, 744 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review); United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012); and the sentence was within the Guidelines range, see United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, 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.
