United States of America v. Antonio Allen Donaby

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-3042
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Antonio Allen Donaby
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: January 25, 2023
Filed: February 6, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Antonio Donaby appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he
pleaded guilty to escaping from custody. His counsel has moved for leave to
1The Honorable Stephen R. Clark, then United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Missouri, now Chief Judge.

-- 1 of 2 --

withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
challenging the sentence. Donaby has filed a pro se brief also challenging the
sentence.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a
substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455,
461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (sentences are reviewed for substantive
reasonableness under deferential abuse of discretion standard; abuse of discretion
occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to
improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing
appropriate factors). The record establishes that the district court adequately
considered the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v.
Mays, 993 F.3d 607, 619 (8th Cir. 2021) (where issues are raised in sentencing
position papers and at the sentencing hearing, district court is presumed to have
considered them); United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (on
appeal, within-Guidelines-range sentence may be presumed reasonable).
We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --