United States v. Devon Pratt

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: October 14, 2020
• Docket: 20-1561
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 20-1561 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Devon Macklin Pratt

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

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

Submitted: October 8, 2020 Filed: October 14, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________

Before BENTON, WOLLMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Devon Macklin Pratt appeals the within-Guidelines sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. 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, 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, 464 (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 factor); United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009) (where court makes individualized assessment based on facts presented, addressing defendant’s proffered information in consideration of § 3553(a) factors, sentence is not unreasonable); see also 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. ______________________________

-2-