United States v. James Willis, No. 21-1451 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Gruender, and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court correctly calculated defendant's offense level and criminal history, and it imposed a substantively reasonable sentence.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 21-1451 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. James Willis lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield ____________ Submitted: September 27, 2021 Filed: September 30, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. James Willis appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to drug and firearm offenses. His counsel has moved for leave to 1 The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court correctly calculated Willis’s offense level and criminal history category. See United States v. Turner, 781 F.3d 374, 393 (8th Cir. 2015) (construction and application of Guidelines are reviewed de novo). We also conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (sentences are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse of discretion standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors). The record establishes that the district court adequately considered the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (on appeal, within-Guidelines-range sentence may be presumed reasonable). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -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.
