United States v. Raymerial Purl

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: December 24, 2025
• Docket: 25-1992
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 25-1992 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Raymerial S. Purl

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau ____________

Submitted: December 19, 2025 Filed: December 24, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________

Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Raymerial Purl appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to drug offenses. His counsel has moved to

1 The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable.

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) (reviewing substantive reasonableness of sentence under deferential 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).

We have independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and affirm. ______________________________

-2-