United States v. Jimmy Adam

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: James B. Loken, Kermit E. Bye and Steven M. Colloton (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4065430-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Ms.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

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[Unpublished]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