United States v. Antwon Molden, No. 18-2046 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Benton, Wollman and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's sentence was not unreasonable or an abuse of the district court's discretion. [ March 11, 2019
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-2046 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Antwon Lavar Molden, also known as Antwan Lavar Molden lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: March 5, 2019 Filed: March 12, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, WOLLMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Antwon Molden directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a felon-in-possession offense. His counsel has moved for leave 1 The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is unreasonable because the district court did not consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Having carefully reviewed the sentencing record, we conclude that there was no abuse of discretion, as the district court discussed some of the statutory factors in substance and also heard relevant arguments from Molden’s counsel. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review); United States v. Gray, 533 F.3d 942, 943-44 (8th Cir. 2008) (this court presumes that district judges understand their obligation to consider § 3553(a) factors; if district court references some § 3553(a) factors, this court is ordinarily satisfied it was aware of them all); United States v. Miles, 499 F.3d 906, 909 (8th Cir. 2007) (because sentencing record demonstrated that district court heard extensive arguments from counsel, it was apparent from record that court properly considered, inter alia, defendant’s mental health and history of drug addiction in determining that sentence imposed was proper). Moreover, we have independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and conclude there are no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -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.
