United States v. Delbert Feezell

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMay 7, 2019
Docket18-3185
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Delbert Feezell (United States v. Delbert Feezell) 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. Delbert Feezell, (8th Cir. 2019).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 18-3185 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Delbert Clay Feezell

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin ____________

Submitted: May 2, 2019 Filed: May 7, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Delbert Clay Feezell directly appeals the within-Guidelines sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to receiving and distributing child pornography.

1 The Honorable Beth Phillips, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. His 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.

Upon careful review, we find no basis to disturb the district court’s sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (stating that sentences are reviewed under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and discussing substantive reasonableness); United States v. St. Claire, 831 F.3d 1039, 1043 (8th Cir. 2016) (noting that a within-Guidelines sentence is accorded a presumption of substantive reasonableness on appeal); see also United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995) (finding that, where a defendant “explicitly and voluntarily” exposed himself to a specific sentence, a direct challenge to the sentence was foreclosed).

Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________

-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. Michael Quoc Anh Nguyen
46 F.3d 781 (Eighth Circuit, 1995)
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. Delbert Feezell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-delbert-feezell-ca8-2019.