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)
21-1970•United States of America v. Thomas Charles Mart
21-1970Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitAug 31, 2022
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-1707
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Thomas Charles Mart
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
____________
Submitted: August 3, 2022
Filed: August 8, 2022
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Thomas Charles Mart appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he
pled guilty to drug and firearm offenses. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1291, this court affirms.
1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
Counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Mart’s sentence is unreasonable. The district court
did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Mart. The court properly considered the
factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and there is no indication that it overlooked
a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or
committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States
v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Further, the court
imposed the statutory minimum sentence. See United States v. Woods, 717 F.3d
654, 659 (8th Cir. 2013).
This court has independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and finds no non-frivolous issues for appeal.
The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
______________________________
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.