United States of America v. Timothy D. Sletten

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1112
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Timothy D. Sletten
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Central
____________
Submitted: May 24, 2024
Filed: June 21, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Timothy Sletten appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he
pleaded guilty to mail fraud. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has
1The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the
reasonableness of the sentence. Sletten has filed a pro se brief challenging the
calculation of the Guidelines range.
Upon careful review, as to Sletten’s pro se arguments, we conclude that the
district court correctly calculated his Guidelines range. We also conclude that the
district court correctly assessed a criminal history point for his Iowa driving-while-
barred conviction, as it qualified as a felony. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c) (sentences for
all felony offenses are counted); United States v. Holm, 745 F.3d 938, 941 (8th Cir.
2014) (aggravated misdemeanor under Iowa law falls within Guidelines definition of
felony offense).
As to the argument in the Anders brief, 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.
Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (on appeal, within-Guidelines-range
sentence may be presumed reasonable).
We have 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 --