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)
22-2921•United States of America v. Krystle Owen
22-2921Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit31.10.2023
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-1396
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Krystle Owen
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
____________
Submitted: October 13, 2023
Filed: October 18, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before ERICKSON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Krystle Owen appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence imposed by the
district court1 after she pled guilty to distribution of methamphetamine, in violation
1The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas.
-- 1 of 2 --
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). Her counsel has moved for leave to
withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a
substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors
listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (substantive
reasonableness of sentence reviewed for abuse of discretion; abuse of discretion
occurs when district court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight
to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing
appropriate factors); see also United States v. White, 506 F.3d 635, 644-45 (8th Cir.
2007) (pursuant to § 3553(a), district court may consider factors already taken into
account in calculating advisory Guidelines range).
We have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.