United States v. Jimmy Adam


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: James B. Loken, Kermit E. Bye and Steven M. Colloton (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4065430-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Ms. Chelsea Wilson Cash. [4122737] [13-2353]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-2353 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Jimmy Wayne Adams lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: February 5, 2014 Filed: February 11, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jimmy Adams pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute, and to distribute, 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. Appellate Case: 13-2353 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/11/2014 Entry ID: 4122737 §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. The district court1 sentenced him to 175 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw, and in a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel argues that the sentence imposed is substantively unreasonable because the court did not properly consider Adams’s arguments for leniency and should have given less weight to some sentencing factors and more weight to others. After careful review of the sentencing record before us, we conclude that the court did not abuse its considerable discretion in weighing relevant sentencing factors, see United States v. Foy, 617 F.3d 1029, 1037 (8th Cir. 2010) (discussing wide latitude given to district court judges in weighing sentencing factors), and gave due consideration to Adams’s arguments, see United States v. Miles, 499 F.3d 906, 909 (8th Cir. 2007) (court’s awareness of defendant’s arguments indicates that court did not abuse discretion by failing to consider them). Accordingly, we reject counsel’s argument that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Finally, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Brian S. Miller, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- Appellate Case: 13-2353 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/11/2014 Entry ID: 4122737

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?