United States v. Scott Slauter

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: July 19, 2024
• Docket: 23-3771
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 23-3771 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Scott Slauter

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Western ____________

Submitted: July 16, 2024 Filed: July 19, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________

Before SMITH, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Scott Slauter appeals the above-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to escaping from custody, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

1 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. § 751(a). His 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 an unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors--both aggravating and mitigating--identified in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not err in weighing them. 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); United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009) (sentence is not unreasonable when court made individualized assessment based on facts presented and addressed defendant's proffered information in its consideration of § 3553(a) factors).

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 grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________

-2-