United States of America v. James Wedlow

24-1001Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit30.04.2025

Gesamter Gesetzestext

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-3535
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
James Wedlow
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: March 27, 2025
Filed: April 23, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
James Wedlow appeals the below-Guidelines sentence the district court1
imposed after he pled guilty to being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm.
Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
1 The Honorable Beth Phillips, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Western District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
Counsel moved for leave to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as substantively
unreasonable. Upon careful review, this court concludes that the district court did
not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as it properly considered the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; there is no indication that it overlooked a relevant factor,
or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors; and the sentence
was below the advisory Guidelines range. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d
455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (abuse of discretion review); United States v.
Anderson, 90 F.4th 1226, 1227 (8th Cir. 2024) (district court has wide latitude in
weighing relevant factors); United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th
Cir. 2013) (when district court varies below Guidelines range, it is “nearly
inconceivable” that court abused its discretion in not varying further).
Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), this court finds no non-frivolous issues for appeal.
The judgment is affirmed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.