United States v. Vonzel Rayford, No. 20-2636 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Kelly, Melloy and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not err in adding three points to defendant's criminal history score based on a 2000 federal conviction; the sentence imposed was not substantively unreasonable. [ January 21, 2021 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-2636 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Vonzel E. Rayford lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield ____________ Submitted: January 19, 2021 Filed: January 22, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before KELLY, MELLOY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Vonzel Rayford appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a firearm offense. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed 1 The Honorable Beth Phillips, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the calculation of Rayford’s criminal history and the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in adding 3 points to Rayford’s criminal history based on his 2000 federal conviction. See United States v. Townsend, 408 F.3d 1020, 1022 (8th Cir. 2005) (standards of review); see also U.S.S.G. §§ 4A1.2(e)(1) (for computing criminal history, any prior prison sentence exceeding 1 year and 1 month that resulted in defendant being incarcerated within 15 years of defendant’s commencement of instant offense is counted); 4A1.2(k)(2) (relevant time period for calculation is date of release from incarceration resulting from revocation of, inter alia, supervised release). We further conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); and there is no indication the court considered an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Salazar-Aleman, 741 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir. 2013) (discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions). Finally, after reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________ -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.
