United States v. Dennis Myer


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Lavenski R. Smith, Pasco M. Bowman and Steven M. Colloton (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4178370-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr.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]

Download PDF
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for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: December 10, 2014 Filed: December 22, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.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

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?