United States v. Dossie Richmond

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: June 8, 2022
• Docket: 21-3756
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 21-3756 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Dossie E. Richmond

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

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

Submitted: May 31, 2022 Filed: June 8, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________

Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Dossie Richmond appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). His

1 The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of the 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 Richmond’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). Furthermore, the district court imposed a sentence below the Guidelines range. See United States v. Bevins, 848 F.3d 835, 841 (8th Cir. 2017) (“[I]t is nearly inconceivable that a sentence is so high as to be substantively unreasonable and constitute an abuse of discretion when the district court imposed a below-Guidelines sentence.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 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. ______________________________

-2-