United States v. Heather Simmons, No. 21-1701 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Erickson, Grasz, and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable; the issues raised in defendant's pro se supplemental brief do not warrant the appointment of new counsel. [ October 12, 2021 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 21-1701 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Heather Valentine Simmons lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern ____________ Submitted: October 6, 2021 Filed: October 14, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before ERICKSON, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Heather Simmons appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after she pled guilty to a drug offense. Her counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Simmons has also filed a pro se motion seeking appointment of new counsel. After careful review, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Simmons. See United States v. Brown, 992 F.3d 665, 673 (8th Cir. 2021) (standard of review). We have also considered the issues raised in Simmons’s pro se motion and conclude appointment of new counsel is not warranted. Furthermore, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we deny Simmons’s pro se motion, grant counsel leave to withdraw, and 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.
