United States v. Parker Willingham


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Kermit E. Bye, Raymond W. Gruender and Duane Benton (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [3895592-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Ms. Laine Cardarella. [3949472] [12-1556]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-1556 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Parker Willingham lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: September 4, 2012 Filed: September 5, 2012 Unpublished ____________ BYE, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Parker Willingham appeals the sentence that the district court1 imposed after revoking his supervised release. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. 1 The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. Appellate Case: 12-1556 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 Entry ID: 3949472 California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and seeks leave to withdraw. In the Anders brief, counsel argues that the sentence is unreasonable, because it is greater than necessary to meet the statutory goals of sentencing, and that the court failed to adequately consider and weigh the sentencing factors. This court reviews a sentence for abuse of discretion, first ensuring that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to consider relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and then considering the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-16 (8th Cir. 2009). Willingham did not argue below that any procedural error occurred, and this court finds no reversible procedural error. See United States v. Molnar, 590 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing for plain error when defendant did not object below). This court also finds that the 24-month prison sentence is reasonable. First, it is within statutory limits. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Second, the district court expressly discussed its reasons for the sentence, including Willingham’s poor history on supervision, the court’s belief that he was immature, lacked appreciation or remorse for his wrongful conduct, needed two years in prison to maximize his potential for rehabilitation, and the court’s overriding concern for community safety. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) (nature and circumstances of offense, history and characteristics of defendant), (a)(2)(A)-(C) (need for sentence imposed to promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, deter criminal conduct, and protect public from further crimes of defendant); see also United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (court reviews revocation sentence for abuse of discretion, ensuring sentence is reasonable). This court affirms, and grants counsel leave to withdraw. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 12-1556 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 Entry ID: 3949472

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?