United States v. Lance Jone

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: MICHAEL J. MELLOY, PASCO M. BOWMAN and BOBBY E. SHEPHERD (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [3806206-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Ms. Laine Cardarella. [3817452] [11-1651]

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________
No. 11-1651
___________
United States of America,
Appellee,
v.
Lance D. Jones,
Appellant.

*
*
*
* Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the Western
* District of Missouri.
*
* [UNPUBLISHED]
*
___________
Submitted: August 5, 2011
Filed: August 12, 2011
___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Lance Jones appeals the sentence the district
court imposed after he pled 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 filed a brief under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and has moved to withdraw.
1

1

The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.

Appellate Case: 11-1651

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/12/2011 Entry ID: 3817452

We conclude that the district court committed no procedural error in sentencing
Jones, 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 Guidelines range, appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness);
United States v. Todd, 521 F.3d 891, 897 (8th Cir. 2008) (district court need not
mechanically recite 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, especially when court applies
Guidelines range). Nothing in the record indicates that the district court failed to
consider a relevant sentencing 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. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005) (describing ways in
which court might abuse its discretion at sentencing).
Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75
(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 11-1651

Page: 2

Date Filed: 08/12/2011 Entry ID: 3817452