United States v. Jordan Mahathath, No. 19-1672 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Benton, Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's sentence was not an abuse of the district court's discretion.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-1672 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Jordan L. Mahathath lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau ____________ Submitted: November 7, 2019 Filed: November 13, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jordan Lee Mahathath appeals the above-Guidelines sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Counsel has 1 The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as an abuse of discretion and substantively unreasonable. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. This court concludes that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Mahathath, as the record reflects the district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (appellate court first ensures no significant procedural error occurred, then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard); see also United States v. Thorne, 896 F.3d 861, 862-63 (8th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (affirming upward variance of 83 months where court properly weighed § 3553(a) factors); United States v. Mangum, 625 F.3d 466, 469-70 (8th Cir. 2010) (upward variance was reasonable where court made individualized assessment based on the facts presented). The court has independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and finds no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________ -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.
