United States v. Anthony Richardson, No. 20-2490 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Shepherd and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable. [ December 02, 2020 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-2490 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. Anthony Donte Richardson, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Central ____________ Submitted: November 30, 2020 Filed: December 3, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Anthony Donte Richardson appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after Richardson pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a felon. His 1 The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 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. 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 and imposing a sentence below the advisory sentencing guideline range. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); see also United States v. Mays, 967 F.3d 748, 754 (8th Cir. 2020); United States v. Dunn, 928 F.3d 688, 694 (8th Cir. 2019). 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.
