United States v. Jeremy Traylor, No. 21-2043 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Benton, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable. [ October 01, 2021 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 21-2043 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Jeremy Thomas Traylor lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Harrison ____________ Submitted: September 29, 2021 Filed: October 4, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BENTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jeremy Thomas Traylor appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed 1 The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable. Having reviewed the record under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard of review, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 (2007), we conclude 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. Richart, 662 F.3d 1037, 1054 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2009). We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we 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.
