UNITED STATES v. STANBROUGH (2019)

[Unpublished]

In these consolidated cases, Jeffery Stanbrough appeals the revocation sentence the district court ¹ imposed after he was found to have violated the terms of his supervised release, and the sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to a new drug offense. His counsel has filed a brief that cites Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and challenges the reasonableness of each sentence. Counsel has also moved for leave to withdraw.

We conclude that the district court imposed a substantively reasonable sentence in each case. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (discussing substantive reasonableness); see also United States v. McGhee, 869 F.3d 703, 705 (8th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (substantive reasonableness of revocation sentence is reviewed under same abuse-of-discretion standard that is applied to initial sentencing decisions); United States v. Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878, 887 (8th Cir. 2011) (district court need not mechanically recite 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, so long as it is clear from the record that court considered them in determining sentence).

We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. The judgments are affirmed, and counsel is granted leave to withdraw.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

PER CURIAM.