United States v. Jerry Oliver, No. 18-1798 (8th Cir. 2018)Annotate this Case
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Gruender and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. District court adequately considered the 3553(a) factors, and defendant's within-Guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-1798 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Jerry Joey Oliver lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith ____________ Submitted: October 3, 2018 Filed: October 9, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jerry Oliver directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of explosive 1 1 The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. materials. Oliver’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the reasonableness of Oliver’s sentence. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461–62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (explaining that sentences, whether inside or outside the Guidelines range, are reviewed under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard). The record establishes that the district court adequately considered the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878, 887 (8th Cir. 2011) (explaining that a district court need not mechanically recite the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors). And we presume on appeal that a sentence within the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -2-