United States v. Dionte Green
This text of United States v. Dionte Green (United States v. Dionte Green) 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.
Opinion
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________
No. 24-2055 ___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Dionte Jabari Green
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________
Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Central ____________
Submitted: October 25, 2024 Filed: October 30, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________
Before LOKEN, SMITH, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________
PER CURIAM.
Dionte Green appeals the within-Guidelines sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm.
1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing his sentence was substantively unreasonable.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Green, as it properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; there was no indication that it overlooked a relevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors; and the sentence was within the advisory Guidelines range. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review); United States v. Anderson, 90 F.4th 1226, 1227 (8th Cir. 2024) (district court has wide latitude in weighing relevant factors); United States v. Miner, 544 F.3d 930, 932 (8th Cir. 2008) (appellate court may presume sentence within properly calculated guidelines range is reasonable).
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. ______________________________
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Dionte Green, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-dionte-green-ca8-2024.