United States v. Christopher Sutphin
Filing
PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Roger L. Wollman, Morris S. Arnold and Diana E. Murphy (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4386350-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Christopher Aaron Holt. [4449027] [16-1590]
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-1590
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Christopher Sutphin
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
____________
Submitted: September 7, 2016
Filed: September 16, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Christopher Sutphin directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in
possession of a firearm, and the district court1 sentenced him to an
1
The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas.
Appellate Case: 16-1590
Page: 1
Date Filed: 09/16/2016 Entry ID: 4449027
above-Guidelines-range prison term of 96 months. His counsel has moved for leave
to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting that the court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence.
Having reviewed the district court’s sentencing decision, we conclude that no
abuse of discretion occurred and that Sutphin’s 96-month prison term is not
substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62
(8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (describing appellate review of sentencing decisions); see
also United States v. Franik, 687 F.3d 988, 991 (8th Cir. 2012) (factors that have
already been taken into account in calculating advisory Guidelines range can
nevertheless form basis of variance; concluding that no abuse of discretion occurred
where district court found Guidelines would not accomplish objectives of 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) without upward variance); United States v. Mangum, 625 F.3d 466, 469-70
(8th Cir. 2010) (upward variance is reasonable where court makes individualized
assessment of § 3553(a) factors based on facts presented, and considers defendant’s
proffered information). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v.
Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.
The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
______________________________
Appellate Case: 16-1590
Page: 2
Date Filed: 09/16/2016 Entry ID: 4449027
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?