United States v. Chovontae Farmer

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedAugust 30, 2022
Docket22-1032
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Chovontae Farmer (United States v. Chovontae Farmer) 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. Chovontae Farmer, (8th Cir. 2022).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 22-1032 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Chovontae Martise Farmer

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern ____________

Submitted: August 19, 2022 Filed: August 30, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________

Before SHEPHERD, MELLOY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Chovontae Farmer received a 228-month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). An Anders brief suggests that the district court1 should have granted a mitigating-role reduction and that the overall sentence is substantively unreasonable. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

We conclude that the district court did not clearly err when it denied a mitigating-role reduction. See United States v. Hunt, 840 F.3d 554, 557 (8th Cir. 2016) (per curiam). We also conclude that Farmer received a substantively reasonable sentence. See United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (stating that a within-Guidelines sentence is presumed reasonable). The record establishes that the district court sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461– 62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc).

Finally, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude that no other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court, deny the motion to file a pro se supplemental brief, and grant counsel permission to withdraw. ______________________________

1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, then Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, now retired. -2-

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)
United States v. Feemster
572 F.3d 455 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Jamie Hunt
840 F.3d 554 (Eighth Circuit, 2016)
United States v. Callaway
762 F.3d 754 (Eighth Circuit, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Chovontae Farmer, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-chovontae-farmer-ca8-2022.