United States v. Todd McDonald, No. 18-1775 (8th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Gruender and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Challenge to term of supervised release rejected as defendant did not object to the adequacy of the court's explanation at sentencing and there was no plain procedural error; the sentence imposed was not substantively unreasonable. [ November 28, 2018
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-1775 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. Todd Richard McDonald, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Dubuque ____________ Submitted: November 26, 2018 Filed: November 29, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Todd McDonald pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, and the district court1 imposed sentence. McDonald filed a notice of appeal. 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. Counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he challenges the term of supervised release. McDonald contends that the district court committed procedural error by failing to explain adequately its reasons for imposing a 3-year term of supervised release. But McDonald did not object at sentencing to the adequacy of the court’s explanation, and we conclude that there was no plain procedural error. We also conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. The court properly considered the relevant sentencing factors and did not commit a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(c). 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 and affirm. ______________________________ -2-