United States v. Tevonta Tiller

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 22, 2021
Docket20-2257
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Tevonta Tiller (United States v. Tevonta Tiller) 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. Tevonta Tiller, (8th Cir. 2021).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 20-2257 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Tevonta Reair Tiller

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

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

Submitted: January 11, 2021 Filed: January 22, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________

Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Tevonta Tiller appeals after he pleaded guilty to bank robbery and a firearm offense, and the district court1 sentenced him below the Guidelines range. His counsel

1 The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Tiller’s conviction and sentence should be vacated due to vindictive prosecution.

Upon careful review, we conclude that Tiller did not demonstrate that the government vindictively prosecuted him. See United States v. Williams, 793 F.3d 957, 963-64 (8th Cir. 2015) (defendant bears heavy burden to demonstrate vindictive prosecution); United States v. Chappell, 779 F.3d 872, 880 (8th Cir. 2015) (presumption of regularity supports prosecutorial decisions absent clear, contrary evidence).

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 motions 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. Arthur Chappell
779 F.3d 872 (Eighth Circuit, 2015)
United States v. Reginald Williams
793 F.3d 957 (Eighth Circuit, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Tevonta Tiller, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-tevonta-tiller-ca8-2021.