United States v. Raymon Harrison, No. 18-1875 (8th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Gruender and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court adequately considered the 3553(a) factors, and defendant's within-guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable. [ October 30, 2018
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-1875 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Raymon D. Harrison lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: October 30, 2018 Filed: October 31, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Raymon Harrison directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a 1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. firearm. Harrison’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of Harrison’s sentence. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it sentenced Harrison. 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 section 3553(a) factors). In addition, we may 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-