United States v. Paul Odom

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: DIANA E. MURPHY, MORRIS S. ARNOLD and BOBBY E. SHEPHERD (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [3838300-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Morse U. Gist, Jr.. [3880332] [11-2790]

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________
No. 11-2790
___________
United States of America,
Appellee,
v.
Paul T. Odom,
Appellant.

*
*
*
* Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the
* Western District of Arkansas.
*
*
[UNPUBLISHED]
*
___________
Submitted: February 9, 2012
Filed: February 15, 2012
___________

Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Paul Odom pleaded guilty to drug-trafficking and firearm charges. See 18
U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A) and 2; 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii) and 846. After
finding that he was a career offender, the district court1 sentenced him to 260 months
in prison. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that Odom’s career-offender
status overstated the seriousness of his criminal history, which consisted of only

1

The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas.

Appellate Case: 11-2790

Page: 1

Date Filed: 02/15/2012 Entry ID: 3880332

nonviolent crimes related to his methamphetamine addiction, and thus the sentence
was unreasonable.
We conclude the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence: the
court committed no significant procedural error in sentencing Odom, see United
States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (describing
procedural error); and the sentence--a 62-month downward variance from the
Guidelines range--was substantively reasonable, see United States v. Augustine, 663
F.3d 367, 374-75 (8th Cir. 2011) (no abuse of discretion where district court granted
smaller downward variance than requested by defendant, but considered arguments
in support of greater downward variance when making sentencing determination).
Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75
(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw, and we affirm.
______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 11-2790

Page: 2

Date Filed: 02/15/2012 Entry ID: 3880332