United States v. Jeremy Bolden


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: James B. Loken, Diana E. Murphy and Kermit E. Bye (UNPUBLISHED) [4374280] [15-2451] The motion of Mr.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]

Download PDF
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Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: February 26, 2016 Filed: March 4, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.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

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?