United States v. Alexander Holcomb, No. 21-2044 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Shepherd, and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable. [ December 09, 2021 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 21-2042 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Alexander Rene Holcomb lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ___________________________ No. 21-2044 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Alexander Rene Holcomb lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeals from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern ____________ Submitted: December 7, 2021 Filed: December 10, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In these consolidated appeals, Alexander Holcomb appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to drug, firearm, and fraud offenses in two separate cases--instituted by separate indictments--which were consolidated prior to the plea hearing. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was unreasonable. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. 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). Further, the court imposed a sentence below the Guidelines range. See United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting that when district court has varied below Guidelines range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that court abused its discretion in not varying downward further). 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. -2- 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, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw. ______________________________ -3-
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.
