United States v. David Tafolla

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-2208

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

David Alan Tafolla

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

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

____________

Submitted: August 29, 2022 Filed: September 1, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

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

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

has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the reasonableness of Tafolla’s prison sentence.

Having reviewed the record under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard of review, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 (2007), we conclude Tafolla’s prison sentence was not substantively unreasonable. The district court considered the statutory sentencing factors and did not overlook a relevant factor, give significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commit a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); see also United States v. Vaca, 38 F.4th 718, 724 (8th Cir. 2022). Furthermore, the district court did not err when it declined to vary downward based on Tafolla’s policy disagreement with the relevant United States Sentencing Guidelines for methamphetamine offenses. See United States v. Sharkey, 895 F.3d 1077, 1082 (8th Cir. 2018) (per curiam). Finally, we have 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 of the district court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________