United States v. Robert Sanford, No. 18-2983 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Stras and Kobes, Circuit Judges Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not plainly err in determining defendant was a career offender as his two Nebraska convictions for robbery were crimes of violence; defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-2983 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Robert E. Sanford lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha ____________ Submitted: September 27, 2019 Filed: October 4, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Robert Sanford pleaded guilty to bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), and received a within-Guidelines-range sentence of 151 months in prison. Critical to the calculation of his sentence was the district court’s 1 determination that he is a career offender based on two prior Nebraska robbery convictions. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a)–(b). In an Anders brief, Sanford’s counsel requests permission to withdraw and specifically identifies the career-offender classification and the substantive reasonableness of Sanford’s sentence as issues for us to consider on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We conclude that the district court did not plainly err in its determination that Sanford is a career offender. See United States v. Harper, 869 F.3d 624, 626–27 (8th Cir. 2017) (holding that federal “bank robbery by intimidation . . . is a crime of violence”); State v. Welchel, 299 N.W.2d 155, 159 (Neb. 1980) (explaining that an essential element of Nebraska robbery is the use of force, violence, or intimidation and that the degree of force is immaterial if it is sufficient to overcome resistance); see also United States v. Robinson, 826 F.3d 1044, 1045 (8th Cir. 2016) (discussing the standard of review). Nor is Sanford’s sentence substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (stating that a withinGuidelines-range sentence is presumptively reasonable). The record establishes that the court sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment. See United States v. Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878, 887 (8th Cir. 2011). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and conclude that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and grant counsel permission to withdraw. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Robert F. Rossiter, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. -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.
