United States v. Larry Boyer


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: MICHAEL J. MELLOY, PASCO M. BOWMAN and BOBBY E. SHEPHERD (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [3793598-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. John P. Messina. [3811154] [11-1994]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-1994 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Larry William Boyer, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: July 22, 2011 Filed: July 26, 2011 ___________ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Larry William Boyer appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to theft of government money, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning the reasonableness of the district court’s decision to impose a term of imprisonment. Counsel has also moved to withdraw. 1 The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. Appellate Case: 11-1994 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/26/2011 Entry ID: 3811154 We conclude that the district court did not commit any procedural error in sentencing Boyer, 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). 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. 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: 11-1994 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/26/2011 Entry ID: 3811154

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?