United States v. Jimmy Adams

553 F. App'x 658
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 11, 2014
Docket13-2353
StatusUnpublished

This text of 553 F. App'x 658 (United States v. Jimmy Adams) 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. Jimmy Adams, 553 F. App'x 658 (8th Cir. 2014).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jimmy Adams pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute, and to distribute, 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. The district court 1 sentenced him to 175 *659 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw, and in a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel argues that the sentence imposed is substantively unreasonable because the court did not properly consider Adams’s arguments for leniency and should have given less weight to some sentencing factors and more weight to others.

After careful review of the sentencing record before us, we conclude that the court did not abuse its considerable discretion in weighing relevant sentencing factors, see United States v. Foy, 617 F.3d 1029, 1037 (8th Cir.2010) (discussing wide latitude given to district court judges in weighing sentencing factors), and gave due consideration to Adams’s arguments, see United States v. Miles, 499 F.3d 906, 909 (8th Cir.2007) (court’s awareness of defendant’s arguments indicates that court did not abuse discretion by failing to consider them). Accordingly, we reject counsel’s argument that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc).

Finally, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm.

1

. The Honorable Brian S. Miller, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

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. Foy
617 F.3d 1029 (Eighth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Miles
499 F.3d 906 (Eighth Circuit, 2007)
United States v. Feemster
572 F.3d 455 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
553 F. App'x 658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jimmy-adams-ca8-2014.