United States v. Byron Teehee, No. 19-1851 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam. Before Gruender, Wollman, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - Anders. Sentence was not substantively unreasonable, as court properly considered appropriate factors. [ November 22, 2019
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-1851 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Byron Christopher Teehee, also known as Ernie lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________ Submitted: November 20, 2019 Filed: November 25, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, WOLLMAN, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Byron Teehee appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief 1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. The court properly considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and there is no indication that the court considered an improper or irrelevant factor or committed a clear error in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Salazar-Aleman, 741 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir. 2013) (discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions). Further, the court imposed a sentence below the guidelines imprisonment range. See United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2009) (stating that where the district court varied downward from the guidelines range, it was “nearly inconceivable” that the court abused its discretion in not varying downward further). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion and 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.
