United States v. Shelton Oliver

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 13, 2022
Docket21-2805
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Shelton Oliver (United States v. Shelton Oliver) 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. Shelton Oliver, (8th Cir. 2022).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 21-2805 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Shelton Oliver, also known as Sinbad

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

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

Submitted: January 10, 2022 Filed: January 13, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________

Before KELLY, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Shelton Oliver appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 following this court’s remand for resentencing on his conviction for drug offenses. His counsel

1 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence.

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, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (sentences are reviewed for substantive reasonableness 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); see also United States v. Mangum, 625 F.3d 466, 469-70 (8th Cir. 2010) (upward variance was reasonable where court made individualized assessment based on facts presented).

We have also 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. Mangum
625 F.3d 466 (Eighth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Feemster
572 F.3d 455 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Shelton Oliver, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-shelton-oliver-ca8-2022.