United States v. Gabriel Mangum, No. 18-1404 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Benton, Shepherd and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's sentence was not unreasonable. [ September 07, 2018
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-1404 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Gabriel Mangum lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: September 4, 2018 Filed: September 10, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Gabriel Mangum appeals the Guidelines-range sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to an escape charge. Mangum’s counsel has moved to 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. withdraw and submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. After careful review of the record, this court concludes that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence, as there was no indication that it overlooked a relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review); United States v. Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878, 887 (8th Cir. 2011). The sentence was within the Guidelines range. See United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014). This court has independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and finds no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________ -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.
