United States v. Brown

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Brown

676 F. App'x 619

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 16, 2017

DocketNo. 16-3348

StatusPublished

This text of 676 F. App'x 619 (United States v. Brown) 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. Brown, 676 F. App'x 619 (8th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Kunta Brown directly appeals the sentence the district court¹ imposed after he pleaded guilty to drug and firearm charges. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. [620]*620California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), questioning the reasonableness of Brown’s sentence.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (explaining that sentences are reviewed under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and discussing substantive reasonableness). In addition, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

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

PER CURIAM.

Kunta Brown directly appeals the sentence the district court¹ imposed after he pleaded guilty to drug and firearm charges. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. [620]*620California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), questioning the reasonableness of Brown’s sentence.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (explaining that sentences are reviewed under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and discussing substantive reasonableness). In addition, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

676 F. App'x 619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-brown-ca8-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack