United States v. Jeremy Bolden

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: James B. Loken, Diana E. Murphy and Kermit E. Bye (UNPUBLISHED) [4374280] [15-2451] The motion of Mr. John Michael Lynch for leave to withdraw as counsel for appellant is granted.--[Edited 03/04/2016 by LMT]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-2451
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jeremy Bolden, also known as J.B.
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: February 26, 2016
Filed: March 4, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Jeremy Bolden directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after
he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute
1

The Honorable John A. Ross, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.

Appellate Case: 15-2451

Page: 1

Date Filed: 03/04/2016 Entry ID: 4374280

heroin, possessing with intent to distribute benzylpiperazine and
methylenedioxymethamphetamine, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drugtrafficking crime. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court abused its
discretion by denying his motion for a downward departure under U.S.S.G.
§ 4A1.3(b)(1), or a downward variance based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors due
to his criminal history being overstated. We lack authority to review the district
court’s denial of a downward departure because Bolden does not argue that the court
had an unconstitutional motive or that the court failed to recognize its authority to
depart downward. See United States v. Heath, 624 F.3d 884, 888 (8th Cir. 2010)
(absent showing of unconstitutional motive, district court’s refusal to grant § 4A1.3
downward departure is not reviewable on appeal so long as court was aware of
authority to depart). We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in
denying a downward variance, as nothing in the record indicated the withinGuidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable, and the court adequately
explained its reasons for denying it. See United States v. Salazar-Aleman, 741 F.3d
878, 881 (8th Cir. 2013) (under substantive review, district court abuses its discretion
if it fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant
factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing factors); United States v.
Cook, 698 F.3d 667, 670 (8th Cir. 2012) (treating within-Guidelines sentence as
presumptively reasonable on appeal); United States v. Gonzalez, 573 F.3d 600, 608
(8th Cir. 2009) (upholding denial of downward variance where court considered
sentencing factors and properly explained rationale). We have reviewed the record
independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no
nonfrivolous issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw.
______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-2451

Page: 2

Date Filed: 03/04/2016 Entry ID: 4374280