United States v. Durango Castile
This text of United States v. Durango Castile (United States v. Durango Castile) 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. 22-3307 ___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Durango Ken Castile
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________
Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Western ____________
Submitted: January 30, 2023 Filed: February 6, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________
Before SHEPHERD, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________
PER CURIAM.
Durango Castile appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to a firearm offense. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw,
1 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (sentences are reviewed for substantive reasonableness 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 factors). The record establishes that the district court adequately considered the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (on appeal, within-Guidelines-range sentence may be presumed reasonable).
We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, 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. Durango Castile, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-durango-castile-ca8-2023.