United States v. Eric Boyer, No. 19-1355 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Colloton and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Any error in calculating defendant's guidelines range was harmless in light of the district court's statement at sentencing that it would impose the same sentence regardless of the advisory range; this alternative sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-1355 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. Eric Allen Boyer, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: September 27, 2019 Filed: October 16, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Eric Boyer appeals after he pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a convicted felon and was sentenced to a prison term within the advisory sentencing guideline range. The district court1 sentenced Boyer within the range, but stated that if the guideline calculations were erroneous, it would nevertheless impose the same sentence based on Boyer’s history and characteristics. Boyer’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court erred in concluding that one of Boyer’s prior convictions qualified as a predicate offense for the purpose of increasing the base offense level, in determining the criminal-history score, and in denying his motion for a downward departure. Counsel further argues that the court’s alternative sentence was substantively unreasonable. We conclude that any error in calculating the guidelines range was harmless in light of the district court’s statements at sentencing that it would have imposed the same sentence regardless of the advisory range. See United States v. Davis, 932 F.3d 1150, 1152-53 (8th Cir. 2019). We also conclude that the alternative sentence was not substantively unreasonable, given that the district court made an individualized assessment of sentencing factors based on the facts presented. See United States v. Mangum, 625 F.3d 466, 469-70 (8th Cir. 2010). Finally, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. -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.
