United States v. Colton Rickels

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 26-1434

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Colton Rickels

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________

Submitted: August 6, 2026 Filed: August 11, 2026

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and TRAYNOR, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Colton Rickels appeals after he pleaded guilty to failing to update his sexoffender registration and the district court1 imposed a within-Guidelines sentence, to

1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

run consecutive to the sentence Rickels received upon the revocation of his supervised release in a separate action. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable.

We conclude that Rickels’s within-Guidelines-range sentence and its imposition consecutive to his revocation sentence were not unreasonable. See United States v. Nelson, 982 F.3d 1141, 1146 (8th Cir. 2020) (reviewing the substantive reasonableness of a sentence and its imposition consecutive to another sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; a within-Guidelines-range sentence is presumed to be reasonable). The district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and there is no indication that the court overlooked a relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.

______________________________