United States of America v. Vincent Gepson

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1511
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Vincent Gepson
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin
____________
Submitted: July 15, 2024
Filed: July 18, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Vincent Gepson appeals after he pled guilty to bank robbery and the district
court1 imposed a within-Guidelines-range sentence. His counsel has moved to
1The Honorable Beth Phillips, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

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 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) (reviewing substantive reasonableness under
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; district court abuses its discretion when it
fails to consider a relevant factor, gives significant weight to an improper or
irrelevant factor, or commits a clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate
factors). Further, the court imposed a sentence within the Guidelines range. See
United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (noting a within-
Guidelines-range sentence is 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
grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --