United States v. Gary Berry, No. 18-3533 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Wollman and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence imposed was substantively reasonable. [ August 09, 2019
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-3533 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Gary Berry lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: August 7, 2019 Filed: August 12, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Gary Berry directly appeals after he pled guilty to receipt of child pornography, and the district court1 sentenced him to a prison term below the calculated Guidelines 1 The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. range. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Berry’s sentence is substantively unreasonable because the prison term is greater than necessary to achieve the purposes of sentencing. Counsel also requests leave to withdraw. We conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (sentences are reviewed under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; discussing substantive reasonableness); see also United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting that when district court has varied below Guidelines range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that court abused its discretion in not varying downward further). In addition, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________ -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.
