United States v. Erik Barber
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.
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Submitted: February 3, 2021 Filed: February 8, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Erik Barber, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-erik-barber-ca8-2021.