United States v. Lance Jone


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: MICHAEL J. MELLOY, PASCO M. BOWMAN and BOBBY E. SHEPHERD (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [3806206-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Ms.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

Download PDF
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 * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: August 5, 2011 Filed: August 12, 2011 ___________ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.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

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?