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)
23-1109•United States of America v. Channing Tyler Williams
23-1109Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit31.07.2024
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-3494
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Channing Tyler Williams
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City
____________
Submitted: July 15, 2024
Filed: July 19, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before KELLY, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
After pleading guilty to a firearms charge, Channing Williams received a 120-
month prison sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). An Anders brief suggests the
sentence is procedurally and substantively flawed. See Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967).
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
We conclude otherwise. The district court1 correctly determined that
Williams’s prior conviction for exhibiting a lethal weapon, see Mo. Rev. Stat.
§ 571.030.1(4), was a crime of violence. See United States v. Larry, 51 F.4th 290,
291–92 (8th Cir. 2022); see also U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(1). It then calculated the
advisory range, selected a sentence, and explained its reasoning. See United States
v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing the
reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion). In doing so, the court
sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did
not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment. See United
States v. McDaniels, 19 F.4th 1065, 1067 (8th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (explaining
that the district court has “wide latitude to weigh the relevant sentencing factors”
and “weighing [them] differently than a defendant would have preferred does not
alone justify reversal” (citation omitted)).
We have also independently reviewed the record and conclude that no other
non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988). We
accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel permission
to withdraw.
______________________________
1 The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.