United States v. Rodney Blocker, No. 22-3174 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Kelly, and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Any error in the district court's guidelines calculation was harmless in light of the district court's determination that it would have imposed the same sentence even if it had sustained defendant's objection to the base offense level and applied a lower advisory guidelines range; the sentence imposed was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-3174 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. Rodney Blocker, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs ____________ Submitted: March 20, 2023 Filed: March 23, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Rodney Blocker appeals a sentence imposed by the district court1 after Blocker pleaded guilty to a firearm offense. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a 1 The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the guidelines calculation and the reasonableness of the sentence. We conclude that there was no reversible error, as the district court explained that it would have imposed the same sentence even if it had sustained Blocker’s objection to the base offense level and applied a lower advisory sentencing guidelines range. See United States v. Thibeaux, 784 F.3d 1221, 1227 (8th Cir. 2015); United States v. Icaza, 492 F.3d 967, 970-71 (8th Cir. 2007). We also conclude that Blocker’s sentence was not unreasonable. 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 the relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014). We have 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’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.
