United States v. Tony Evans

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 16, 2024
Docket24-1723
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Tony Evans (United States v. Tony Evans) 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. Tony Evans, (8th Cir. 2024).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 24-1723 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Tony Evans, also known as Big Boy

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________

Submitted: September 11, 2024 Filed: September 16, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

Tony Evans appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pled guilty to drug offenses. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief

1 The Honorable John A. Ross, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of his 130-month term of imprisonment.

After careful review, we conclude that the term of imprisonment is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Lozoya, 623 F.3d 624, 625 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review). There is no indication that the district court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment when it imposed the prison term. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Additionally, the 130-month term is within the Guidelines range, and therefore presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Foard, 108 F.4th 729, 738 (8th Cir. 2024).

We have independently reviewed the record 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-

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. Lozoya
623 F.3d 624 (Eighth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Feemster
572 F.3d 455 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Dalonte Foard
108 F.4th 729 (Eighth Circuit, 2024)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Tony Evans, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-tony-evans-ca8-2024.