United States v. Brian Wright

Filing 920101117

Opinion

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-2158 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Brian Terrence Wright, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: November 1, 2010 Filed: November 17, 2010 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Brian Wright appeals the 110-month prison sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that Wright believes his sentence is too harsh but that our court lacks jurisdiction to review Wright's within-the-guidelines sentence. The Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. 1 We have jurisdiction to review Wright's sentence, and we conclude that the district court committed no procedural error and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (in reviewing sentence, appellate court first ensures that district court committed no significant procedural error, and then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard; if sentence is within applicable Guidelines range, appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005) (describing abuse of discretion). Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________ -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?