United States v. Michael Teel

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-1656

___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Michael Ray Teel

Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________

Submitted: August 9, 2022 Filed: August 15, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Michael Ray Teel appeals after he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Teel objects to the Guidelines-range sentence the district court 1 imposed.

Counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he challenges the sentence as unreasonable. The court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. The record reflects that the court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, recognized its authority to vary downward, but declined to do so after considering Teel’s arguments and the record. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (in reviewing sentences, appellate court first ensures no significant procedural error occurred, then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard; abuse of discretion occurs when 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. Lewis, 593 F.3d 765, 773 (8th Cir. 2010) (denial of downward variance was reasonable, as court considered arguments for downward variance and exercised its discretion in rejecting them); cf. United States v. St. Claire, 831 F.3d 1039, 1043 (8th Cir. 2016) (within-Guidelines sentence is accorded a presumption of substantive reasonableness on appeal).

This court has reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and has found no non-frivolous issues.

The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

______________________________

1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.