United States v. Dominic Pearson, No. 18-1576 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Benton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's below-guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable or an abuse of the district court's discretion.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-1576 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Dominic Keith Pearson lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield ____________ Submitted: November 2, 2018 Filed: November 27, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Dominic Keith Pearson directly appeals the below-Guidelines sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to sex crimes involving a minor. Counsel 1 The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is unreasonable. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. After careful review, this court concludes that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Pearson. The record reflects that the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors—including the seriousness of the offenses and Pearson’s history—and imposed a below-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009); United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2009). This court has independently reviewed the record under 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.
