United States v. Wie Toang, No. 19-2414 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Stras and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's below-guidelines-range sentence is not substantively unreasonable; the district court considered the 3553(a) factors and did not err in weighing them.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-2414 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Wie Kong Toang lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________ Submitted: February 3, 2020 Filed: February 6, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Wie Toang appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to drug and firearm offenses. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and 1 The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was unreasonable. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (sentences are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse of discretion standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors). Further, the court imposed a sentence below the Guidelines range. See 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). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -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.
