United States v. Austin Alexander

533 F. App'x 700
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedOctober 9, 2013
Docket13-1741
StatusUnpublished

This text of 533 F. App'x 700 (United States v. Austin Alexander) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Austin Alexander, 533 F. App'x 700 (8th Cir. 2013).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Austin Alexander appeals from the thirty-month sentence that the District Court 1 imposed after Alexander pleaded guilty to *701 manufacturing counterfeit currency, 18 U.S.C. § 471. On appeal, Alexander’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (describing appellate review of sentences under the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and noting that if a sentence is within the Guidelines range, the appellate court may apply a presumption of reasonableness); see also United States v. Werlein, 664 F.3d 1143, 1146 (8th Cir.2011) (per curiam) (explaining that if an appellant does not argue that the district court committed procedural error, we proceed directly to a review of the substantive reasonableness of the sentence).

We have reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Alexander’s sentence, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Gall v. United States
552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court, 2007)
United States v. Werlein
664 F.3d 1143 (Eighth Circuit, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
533 F. App'x 700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-austin-alexander-ca8-2013.