United States v. Jason N. Williamson

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Jason N. Williamson

253 F. App'x 617

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedNovember 8, 2007

Docket06-2800

StatusUnpublished

This text of 253 F. App'x 617 (United States v. Jason N. Williamson) 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. Jason N. Williamson, 253 F. App'x 617 (8th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jason Nathaniel Williamson appeals the 235-month prison sentences the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to bank robbery with a dangerous weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), and money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(l)(B)(i). His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the sentences, at the top of the advisory Guidelines range, are unreasonable, because the court gave undue weight to a robbery victim’s testimony as compared to Williamson’s mental illness and sentenced him beyond what was minimally sufficient.

The presumption of reasonableness accorded a sentence within the Guidelines range, see Rita v. United States, —U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462-68, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007), may be rebutted by showing that the district court failed to consider a factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an irrelevant factor, or otherwise committed a clear error of judgment, see United States v. Davidson, 437 F.3d 737, 741 (8th Cir.2006). The record supports that the district court properly considered only relevant factors, including the offense circumstances and Williamson’s extensive criminal history, as well as his serious mental illness; and that the court did not commit a clear error of judgment in choosing sentences at the top of the Guidelines range. Thus, we conclude that the sentences are not unreasonable. See United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th Cir.2005) (standard of review).

Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw on condition *618 that counsel inform appellant about the procedures for filing petitions for rehearing and for certiorari.

1

. The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.

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

PER CURIAM.

Jason Nathaniel Williamson appeals the 235-month prison sentences the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to bank robbery with a dangerous weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), and money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(l)(B)(i). His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the sentences, at the top of the advisory Guidelines range, are unreasonable, because the court gave undue weight to a robbery victim’s testimony as compared to Williamson’s mental illness and sentenced him beyond what was minimally sufficient.

The presumption of reasonableness accorded a sentence within the Guidelines range, see Rita v. United States, —U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462-68, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007), may be rebutted by showing that the district court failed to consider a factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an irrelevant factor, or otherwise committed a clear error of judgment, see United States v. Davidson, 437 F.3d 737, 741 (8th Cir.2006). The record supports that the district court properly considered only relevant factors, including the offense circumstances and Williamson’s extensive criminal history, as well as his serious mental illness; and that the court did not commit a clear error of judgment in choosing sentences at the top of the Guidelines range. Thus, we conclude that the sentences are not unreasonable. See United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th Cir.2005) (standard of review).

Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw on condition *618 that counsel inform appellant about the procedures for filing petitions for rehearing and for certiorari.

1

. The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 F. App'x 617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jason-n-williamson-ca8-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack