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)
23-1109•United States of America v. Scott Slauter
23-1109Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitJul 31, 2024
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-3771
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Scott Slauter
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Western
____________
Submitted: July 16, 2024
Filed: July 19, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Scott Slauter appeals the above-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1
imposed after he pled guilty to escaping from custody, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
1The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Iowa.
-- 1 of 2 --
§ 751(a). His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an
unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors--both aggravating
and mitigating--identified in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not err in weighing them.
See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc)
(substantive reasonableness of sentence reviewed for abuse of discretion; abuse of
discretion occurs when district court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant
weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in
weighing appropriate factors); United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir.
2009) (sentence is not unreasonable when court made individualized assessment
based on facts presented and addressed defendant's proffered information in its
consideration of § 3553(a) factors).
We have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.