United States v. Erik Barber

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 8, 2021
Docket20-2467
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Erik Barber (United States v. Erik Barber) 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.

Bluebook
United States v. Erik Barber, (8th Cir. 2021).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 20-2467 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Erik M. Barber

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

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

Submitted: February 3, 2021 Filed: February 8, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________

Before GRASZ, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Erik Barber received a 219-month sentence after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute a controlled substance. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), 846. In an Anders brief, Barber’s counsel suggests that the sentence is substantively unreasonable and requests permission to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We affirm. We conclude that Barber’s sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461–62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (applying an abuse-of-discretion standard); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (stating that a within-Guidelines-range sentence is presumptively reasonable). The record establishes that the district court 1 sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment. See United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923–24 (8th Cir. 2006). Moreover, the court had no obligation to vary downward “on policy grounds,” even if it had the authority to do so. United States v. Black, 670 F.3d 877, 882 (8th Cir. 2012).

Finally, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude that no other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel permission to withdraw. ______________________________

1 The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. -2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
United States v. Black
670 F.3d 877 (Eighth Circuit, 2012)
United States v. Duane Larison
432 F.3d 921 (Eighth Circuit, 2006)
United States v. Feemster
572 F.3d 455 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Callaway
762 F.3d 754 (Eighth Circuit, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Erik Barber, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-erik-barber-ca8-2021.