Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Raymon D. HARRISON Defendant-Appellant

No. 18-1875

Decided: October 31, 2018

Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. Bradley K. Kavanaugh, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Courtney R. Pratten, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee Raymon D. Harrison, Pro Se


Raymon Harrison directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Harrison’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 substantive reasonableness of Harrison’s sentence.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it sentenced Harrison. 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 section 3553(a) factors). In addition, we may 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.


1.   The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.


Copied to clipboard