United States of America v. Dwan Xavier Moore

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1119
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Dwan Xavier Moore
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Central
____________
Submitted: July 25, 2024
Filed: July 30, 2024
[Unpubllished]
____________
Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Dwan Moore appeals after he pleaded guilty to drug and firearm offenses and
the district court1 imposed a below-Guidelines-range sentence. His counsel has
1The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), arguing that the district court erred in denying a reduction for acceptance of
responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 and challenging the sentence as substantively
unreasonable.
We conclude the district court did not clearly err in denying a reduction for
acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Winters, 416 F.3d 856, 860 (8th
Cir. 2005) (explaining the standard of review). Having reviewed the record under a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard of review, we also conclude the court did not
impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court considered the factors set
forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and there is no indication the court 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); see also United States
v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (explaining that when a district
court varies below the Guideline range, “it is nearly inconceivable” that the court
abused its discretion in not varying further). Finally, we have independently
reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no
non-frivolous issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --