United States v. Travis Eaton

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Travis Eaton

607 F. App'x 594

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJune 5, 2015

Docket14-3526

StatusUnpublished

This text of 607 F. App'x 594 (United States v. Travis Eaton) 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. Travis Eaton, 607 F. App'x 594 (8th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Travis James Eaton directly appeals the 234-month sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pled guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine as a second felony drug offender, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and 851. In a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel argues that Eaton’s sentence was substantively unreasonable. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

After careful review, this court concludes the sentence was not substantively unreasonable. The district court thoroughly analyzed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; noted Eaton’s recidivism, failure to pursue drug rehabilitation, and possession of large amounts of high-quality methamphetamine and multiple weapons; and did not commit a clear error of judgment in weighing the sentencing factors. See United States v. Deering, 762 F.3d 783, 787 (8th Cir.2014) (district court has wide latitude to weigh § 3553(a) factors and assign some factors greater weight than others in determining appropriate sentence); United States v. Salazar-Aleman, 741 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir.2013) (under substantive review, district court abuses its discretion if it fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgmentfin weighing factors); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (substantive review is narrow and deferential). This court notes that the extent of the district court’s departure is not reviewable on appeal. See Deering, 762 F.3d at 786. An independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), reveals no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District .Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Travis James Eaton directly appeals the 234-month sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pled guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine as a second felony drug offender, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and 851. In a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel argues that Eaton’s sentence was substantively unreasonable. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

After careful review, this court concludes the sentence was not substantively unreasonable. The district court thoroughly analyzed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; noted Eaton’s recidivism, failure to pursue drug rehabilitation, and possession of large amounts of high-quality methamphetamine and multiple weapons; and did not commit a clear error of judgment in weighing the sentencing factors. See United States v. Deering, 762 F.3d 783, 787 (8th Cir.2014) (district court has wide latitude to weigh § 3553(a) factors and assign some factors greater weight than others in determining appropriate sentence); United States v. Salazar-Aleman, 741 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir.2013) (under substantive review, district court abuses its discretion if it fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgmentfin weighing factors); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (substantive review is narrow and deferential). This court notes that the extent of the district court’s departure is not reviewable on appeal. See Deering, 762 F.3d at 786. An independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), reveals no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District .Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

607 F. App'x 594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-travis-eaton-ca8-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack