United States v. Cortez Nelson

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 13, 2021
Docket20-2105
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Cortez Nelson (United States v. Cortez Nelson) 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. Cortez Nelson, (8th Cir. 2021).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 20-2105 ___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Cortez David Nelson

Defendant - Appellant ____________

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

Submitted: January 8, 2021 Filed: January 13, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, BENTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM. Cortez Nelson appeals the within-Guidelines sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pled guilty to conspiring to distribute a controlled substance. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. This court concludes that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence because the record reflects that it properly considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (appellate court first ensures no significant procedural error occurred, then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors); United States v. St. Claire, 831 F.3d 1039, 1043 (8th Cir. 2016) (within- Guidelines sentence is accorded presumption of substantive reasonableness on appeal). The court has independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and finds no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________

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

-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. Ervin St. Claire
831 F.3d 1039 (Eighth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Cortez Nelson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-cortez-nelson-ca8-2021.