United States v. Deshone Dodson, No. 20-1452 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Benton and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The bottom-of-the-guidelines-range sentence imposed was not substantively unreasonable. [ October 02, 2020 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-1452 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Deshone Lee Dodson lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern ____________ Submitted: September 30, 2020 Filed: October 5, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Deshone Lee Dodson appeals after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense, and the district court1 imposed a sentence at the bottom of the advisory sentencing guideline 1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. range. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Upon careful review under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007), 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 overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); see also United States v. Munz, 780 F.3d 1199, 1200-01 (8th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). Finally, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment. ______________________________ -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.
