United States v. Krystle Owen
This text of United States v. Krystle Owen (United States v. Krystle Owen) 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. 23-1396 ___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Krystle Owen
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________
Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________
Submitted: October 13, 2023 Filed: October 18, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________
Before ERICKSON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________
PER CURIAM.
Krystle Owen appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence imposed by the district court1 after she pled guilty to distribution of methamphetamine, in violation
1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). Her counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (substantive reasonableness of sentence reviewed for abuse of discretion; abuse of discretion occurs when district court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors); see also United States v. White, 506 F.3d 635, 644-45 (8th Cir. 2007) (pursuant to § 3553(a), district court may consider factors already taken into account in calculating advisory Guidelines range).
We have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________
-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. Krystle Owen, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-krystle-owen-ca8-2023.