United States v. Erik Barber, No. 20-2467 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Grasz, Wollman, and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. [ February 05, 2021 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-2467 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Erik M. Barber lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Western ____________ Submitted: February 3, 2021 Filed: February 8, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRASZ, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Erik Barber received a 219-month sentence after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute a controlled substance. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), 846. In an Anders brief, Barber’s counsel suggests that the sentence is substantively unreasonable and requests permission to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We affirm. We conclude that Barber’s sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461–62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (applying an abuse-of-discretion standard); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (stating that a within-Guidelines-range sentence is presumptively reasonable). The record establishes that the district court 1 sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment. See United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923–24 (8th Cir. 2006). Moreover, the court had no obligation to vary downward “on policy grounds,” even if it had the authority to do so. United States v. Black, 670 F.3d 877, 882 (8th Cir. 2012). Finally, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude that no other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel permission to withdraw. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. -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.
