United States v. Dwan Moore

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: July 30, 2024
• Docket: 24-1119
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 24-1119 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Dwan Xavier Moore

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Central ____________

Submitted: July 25, 2024 Filed: July 30, 2024 [Unpubllished] ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

Dwan Moore appeals after he pleaded guilty to drug and firearm offenses and the district court1 imposed a below-Guidelines-range sentence. His counsel has

1 The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court erred in denying a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 and challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable.

We conclude the district court did not clearly err in denying a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Winters, 416 F.3d 856, 860 (8th Cir. 2005) (explaining the standard of review). Having reviewed the record under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard of review, we also conclude the court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and there is no indication the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); see also United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (explaining that when a district court varies below the Guideline range, “it is nearly inconceivable” that the court abused its discretion in not varying further). 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 grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment. ______________________________

-2-