United States v. Rodney Blocker

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMarch 23, 2023
Docket22-3174
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Rodney Blocker (United States v. Rodney Blocker) 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. Rodney Blocker, (8th Cir. 2023).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 22-3174 ___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Rodney Blocker,

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs ____________

Submitted: March 20, 2023 Filed: March 23, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________

Before COLLOTON, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Rodney Blocker appeals a sentence imposed by the district court1 after Blocker pleaded guilty to a firearm offense. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a

1 The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the guidelines calculation and the reasonableness of the sentence.

We conclude that there was no reversible error, as the district court explained that it would have imposed the same sentence even if it had sustained Blocker’s objection to the base offense level and applied a lower advisory sentencing guidelines range. See United States v. Thibeaux, 784 F.3d 1221, 1227 (8th Cir. 2015); United States v. Icaza, 492 F.3d 967, 970-71 (8th Cir. 2007). We also conclude that Blocker’s sentence was not unreasonable. 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 the relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014).

We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, 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

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
United States v. Icaza
492 F.3d 967 (Eighth Circuit, 2007)
United States v. Feemster
572 F.3d 455 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Mario Thibeaux
784 F.3d 1221 (Eighth Circuit, 2015)
United States v. Callaway
762 F.3d 754 (Eighth Circuit, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Rodney Blocker, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-rodney-blocker-ca8-2023.