United States v. Martez Butler, No. 18-2586 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Sentencing. Anders case. Because defendant possessed the firearm in question in connection with another offense, the district court properly applied the cross reference of Guidelines Sec. 2K2.1(c) in calculating his guidelines range; no error in calculating the range, and the sentence imposed was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-2586 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. Martez Butler, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________ Submitted: February 25, 2019 Filed: February 28, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Martez Butler pleaded guilty to a firearms offense, and the district court1 sentenced him to a term of imprisonment within the advisory guideline range. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence. Butler has filed a pro se brief. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in sentencing Butler. Because Butler possessed a firearm in connection with another offense, the court properly applied the cross reference of USSG § 2K2.1(c) in calculating his guideline range. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 comment. (n.14(C)); United States v. Howell, 606 F.3d 960, 964 (8th Cir. 2010). The court also correctly calculated Butler’s criminal history. See USSG §§ 4A1.1, 4A1.2. We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence. See generally United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). The district court adequately considered the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and we presume that a sentence within the advisory range is 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. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. -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.
