Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kevin Eugene LEE Defendant-Appellant
[Unpublished]
Kevin Lee appeals after the district court 1 resentenced him, imposing a prison term within the calculated Guidelines range. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the district court improperly denied a motion for sealed documents and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. Lee has filed a supplemental brief arguing that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lee's motion for sealed documents. See United States v. Spotted Elk, 548 F.3d 641, 672 (8th Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion review; noting that defendant failed to show special need for sealed document in light of publicly available sources). We further conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; noting that if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may, but is not required to, apply presumption of reasonableness).
Finally, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, the judgement is affirmed, and counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.
FOOTNOTES
1. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 17-2355
Decided: February 09, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)