The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
17-3034•United States of America v. Gabriel Mangum
17-3034Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitSep 28, 2018
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 18-1404
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Gabriel Mangum
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
____________
Submitted: September 4, 2018
Filed: September 10, 2018
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Gabriel Mangum appeals the Guidelines-range sentence the district court1
imposed after he pled guilty to an escape charge. Mangum’s counsel has moved to
The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern1
District of Iowa.
-- 1 of 2 --
withdraw and submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
arguing that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. Having jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
After careful review of the record, this court concludes that the district court
did not impose an unreasonable sentence, as there was no indication that it
overlooked a relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factor, or committed a clear error of
judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074,
1077 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review); United States v. Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878,
887 (8th Cir. 2011). The sentence was within the Guidelines range. See United
States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014). This court has independently
reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and finds no
nonfrivolous issues for appeal.
The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
______________________________
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.