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. Tyson Ray WAHLEN Defendant - Appellant
[Unpublished]
Tyson Wahlen appeals after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense and the district court 1 sentenced him to 178 months in prison, below the advisory United States Sentencing 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), challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable.
Having reviewed the record under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard of review, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007), we conclude the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. The court properly considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and there is no indication that the 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. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (explaining the standard of review); United States v. Richart, 662 F.3d 1037, 1054 (8th Cir. 2011) (concluding that a mere disagreement with how the district court reasonably weighed the relevant factors is insufficient to demonstrate an abuse of discretion). Furthermore, the court did not err in declining to vary downward further based on Wahlen's policy disagreement with the relevant Guidelines for methamphetamine offenses. See United States v. Sharkey, 895 F.3d 1077, 1082 (8th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (explaining that a district court does not abuse its discretion when it considers but rejects a request to vary downward based on a policy disagreement over Guidelines sentencing disparities). Finally, 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 have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel's motion to withdraw.
FOOTNOTES
1. The Honorable C.J. Williams, 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. 20-3692
Decided: April 30, 2021
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)