United States v. David Davis, Jr.

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 24-3440

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

David Lee Davis, Jr.

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

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

____________

Submitted: October 2, 2025 Filed: October 7, 2025

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

David Davis appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and

1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), discussing potential arguments challenging Davis’s sentence.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in sentencing Davis. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (in reviewing sentence, appellate court first ensures that district court committed no significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating Guidelines range, then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-ofdiscretion standard). To the extent Davis contends that the government withheld evidence material to sentencing, we conclude that he failed to show that the government failed to disclose any such information. See Dye v. Stender, 208 F.3d 662, 665 (8th Cir. 2000) (prosecution is required to divulge all evidence favorable to accused that is material either to guilt or punishment). We also defer any claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for collateral review. See United States v. McAdory, 501 F.3d 868, 872 (8th Cir. 2007) (noting ineffective-assistance claims are ordinarily deferred to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings).

Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________