Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
14-3277•United States of America v. Jarvis Miranda, also known as Crazy
14-3277Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit29.01.2016
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-2354
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jarvis Miranda, also known as Crazy
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
____________
Submitted: December 31, 2015
Filed: January 6, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Jarvis Miranda directly appeals after he pled guilty to a drug-conspiracy
offense and a felon-in-possession offense and the district court sentenced him to a1
The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the1
Western District of Arkansas.
-- 1 of 2 --
total of 293 months in prison, upon imposing two partially consecutive prison terms.
His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court imposed a
substantively unreasonable sentence.
After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a
substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074,
1076-77 (8th Cir. 2012) (discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions); see
also 18 U.S.C. § 3584 (if multiple terms of imprisonment are imposed at same time,
terms may run concurrently or consecutively; as to each offense court shall consider
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors). Furthermore, having independently reviewed the record
pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
______________________________
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.