United States v. Thein Maung

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMay 22, 2024
Docket23-3289
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Thein Maung (United States v. Thein Maung) 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. Thein Maung, (8th Cir. 2024).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 23-3289 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Thein Maung, also known as Joseph Ramarn

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

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

Submitted: May 17, 2024 Filed: May 22, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Thein Maung appeals after he pleaded guilty to multiple counts relating to a scheme to defraud the government and other individuals. His counsel has moved to 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 court1 did not err in imposing the below-Guidelines sentence that Maung received, as the record reflects that the court properly calculated the Guidelines range and considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and there is no indication the court overlooked a relevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Meza-Lopez, 808 F.3d 743, 745-46 (8th Cir. 2015); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); United States v. Moore, 581 F.3d 681, 684 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

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

1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

-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. Moore
581 F.3d 681 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Feemster
572 F.3d 455 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Jose Meza-Lopez
808 F.3d 743 (Eighth Circuit, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Thein Maung, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-thein-maung-ca8-2024.