UNITED STATES v. MCNICHOLS (2020)

[Unpublished]

Antonio McNichols appeals after the district court ¹ revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to term of imprisonment within the advisory sentencing guideline range. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief challenging the sentence as unreasonable.

After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district did not abuse its wide discretion in sentencing McNichols. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-18 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review). The record reflects that the district court properly considered factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), see United States v. Gray, 533 F.3d 942, 943 (8th Cir. 2008); 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 in weighing relevant factors, see United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir. 2006); and the sentence is below the statutory limit, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm the judgment.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

PER CURIAM.