United States v. Leonard Boyd

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 2, 2024
Docket23-3166
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Leonard Boyd (United States v. Leonard Boyd) 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. Leonard Boyd, (8th Cir. 2024).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 23-3166 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Leonard Deshawn Boyd

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern ____________

Submitted: January 26, 2024 Filed: February 2, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________

Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Leonard Deshawn Boyd appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to escaping from custody. His counsel has filed a brief under

1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

We conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (substantive reasonableness of sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion). The court properly considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and there is no indication that the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See id., 572 F.3d at 461-62; United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009) (where district court makes individualized assessment based on facts presented, addressing defendant’s proffered information in its consideration of § 3553(a) factors, sentence is not unreasonable). Having reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. ______________________________

-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. Stults
575 F.3d 834 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Feemster
572 F.3d 455 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Leonard Boyd, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-leonard-boyd-ca8-2024.