UNITED STATES v. TILLER (2021)

[Unpublished]

Tevonta Tiller appeals after he pleaded guilty to bank robbery and a firearm offense, and the district court ¹ sentenced him below the Guidelines range. His counsel has moved 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 Tiller's conviction and sentence should be vacated due to vindictive prosecution.

Upon careful review, we conclude that Tiller did not demonstrate that the government vindictively prosecuted him. See United States v. Williams, 793 F.3d 957, 963-64 (8th Cir. 2015) (defendant bears heavy burden to demonstrate vindictive prosecution); United States v. Chappell, 779 F.3d 872, 880 (8th Cir. 2015) (presumption of regularity supports prosecutorial decisions absent clear, contrary evidence).

We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel's motions to withdraw.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

PER CURIAM.