United States v. Shawn Schuckman, No. 20-3017 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Grasz, and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not err in calculating the quantity of drugs attributable to defendant, and his sentence was not substantively unreasonable. [ July 16, 2021 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-3017 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Shawn Schuckman, also known as Bird lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________ Submitted: July 14, 2021 Filed: July 19, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Shawn Schuckman received a 240-month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(viii). Schuckman’s counsel requests permission to withdraw and, in an Anders brief, challenges the district court’s 1 drug-quantity calculation and the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We affirm. We conclude that the district court did not clearly err when it found that Schuckman had distributed approximately 120 pounds of methamphetamine over a two-and-a-half-month period. See United States v. Yellow Horse, 774 F.3d 493, 496 (8th Cir. 2014) (reviewing drug-quantity findings for clear error). His statements to law enforcement and other evidence in the case, including the considerable amounts of drugs and money kept in his hotel room, support the court’s finding. See United States v. Ortiz-Martinez, 1 F.3d 662, 675 (8th Cir. 1992) (stating that a drug-quantity finding was not clearly erroneous when corroborating evidence supported it). Schuckman’s sentence is also substantively reasonable. See United States v. McKanry, 628 F.3d 1010, 1022 (8th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that “it is nearly inconceivable that” once a district court has varied downward, it “abuse[s] its discretion in not varying downward [even] further” (quotation marks omitted)). The record establishes that the district court 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. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). 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 Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. -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.
