Skip to main content

UNITED STATES v. OLIVER (2018)

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jerry Joey OLIVER Defendant-Appellant

No. 18-1798

Decided: October 09, 2018

Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. Denis Dean, U.S. Attorney's Office, Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee Jerry Joey Oliver, Pro Se

[Unpublished]

Jerry Oliver directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of explosive materials. Oliver’s 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 reasonableness of Oliver’s sentence.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461–62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (explaining that sentences, whether inside or outside the Guidelines range, are reviewed under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard). The record establishes that the district court adequately considered the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878, 887 (8th Cir. 2011) (explaining that a district court need not mechanically recite the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors). And we presume on appeal that a sentence within the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014).

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 there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

FOOTNOTES

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

PER CURIAM.

Copied to clipboard