United States v. Griffin Davis, No. 20-2125 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Gruender, and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not abuse its discretion by departing upwards from the Guidelines, and the sentence it imposed was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-2125 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Griffin Riley Davis lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern ____________ Submitted: February 1, 2021 Filed: February 10, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Griffin Davis appeals the above-Guidelines sentence imposed by the district court after he pleaded guilty to a firearms offense. His counsel has moved for leave 1 1 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is unreasonable. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by departing upward from the Guidelines; and 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. Vasquez, 552 F.3d 734, 738 (8th Cir. 2009) (departures from sentencing Guidelines are reviewed for abuse of discretion); 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). 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, 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.
