United States v. Kevin Williams

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedAugust 15, 2018
Docket17-3356
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Kevin Williams (United States v. Kevin Williams) 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. Kevin Williams, (8th Cir. 2018).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 17-3356 ___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Kevin Kunlay Williams,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant. ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________

Submitted: July 20, 2018 Filed: August 15, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

Kevin Kunlay Williams directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district 1 court after he pleaded guilty to fraud and immigration offenses. His counsel has

1 The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, Chief Judge, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the sentence is substantively unreasonable. Williams has moved to proceed pro se.

After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. The sentence was below the advisory Guideline range. The court properly considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and there is no indication that the court committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review); see also United States v. Torres-Ojeda, 829 F.3d 1027, 1030 (8th Cir. 2016).

Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion, deny Williams’s pro se motion, and affirm. ______________________________

-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. Feemster
572 F.3d 455 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Alejandro Manuel Torres-Ojeda
829 F.3d 1027 (Eighth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Kevin Williams, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-kevin-williams-ca8-2018.