United States v. Paula Cole, No. 20-3005 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Colloton, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable. [ February 12, 2021 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-3005 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Paula Cole lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: February 10, 2021 Filed: February 16, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Paula Cole appeals after she pleaded guilty to perjury and the district court1 imposed a sentence that varied downward from the advisory sentencing guideline 1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. range. Her counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the four-month prison sentence and four-month home detention as unreasonable. Having reviewed the record under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard of review, 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. Dunn, 928 F.3d 688, 694 (8th Cir. 2019); United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2009). Furthermore, 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.
