United States v. Dennis Myer

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Lavenski R. Smith, Pasco M. Bowman and Steven M. Colloton (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4178370-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. William Joseph Raymond.; Denying as moot [4184738-2] motion for appointment of new counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Dennis W. Myers. [4228175] [14-2243]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 14-2243
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Dennis W. Myers
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: December 10, 2014
Filed: December 22, 2014
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Dennis Myers directly appeals the sentences that the district court1 imposed
after he pleaded guilty to sex offenses. His counsel seeks leave to withdraw, and has
1

The Honorable Greg Kays, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri.

Appellate Case: 14-2243

Page: 1

Date Filed: 12/22/2014 Entry ID: 4228175

filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district
court abused its discretion in varying upward from the calculated Guidelines range
to impose the statutory maximum sentences. Myers has moved for the appointment
of new counsel.
Upon careful review, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.
2009) (en banc) (abuse-of-discretion review of sentencing decision), we conclude that
the sentences are not unreasonable. The district court considered the extensive
evidence and arguments presented by both sides at the sentencing hearing, and
explicitly, carefully, and at length explained the court’s reasons for varying upward
under the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) as applied to Myers. See United
States v. Richart, 662 F.3d 1037, 1051 (8th Cir. 2011) (upholding upward variance
to statutory maximum and imposition of consecutive sentences); United States v.
Mangum, 625 F.3d 466, 470 (8th Cir. 2010) (upward variance is reasonable where
district court makes individualized assessment of § 3553(a) factors). Further, having
independently reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,
80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. We also grant counsel leave to
withdraw, and we deny as moot the motion for appointment of new counsel.
______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-2243

Page: 2

Date Filed: 12/22/2014 Entry ID: 4228175