United States of America v. Kristopher Raphael Owens

23-1365Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitMar 31, 2025

Full text

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-3124
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Kristopher Raphael Owens
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: February 18, 2025
Filed: March 3, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Kristopher Raphael Owens appeals after he pled guilty to a drug offense, and
the district court1 varied downward from the Guidelines range and imposed a sentence
1The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.

-- 1 of 2 --

of 144 months in prison. Counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and filed a brief
under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was
substantively unreasonable, and the court should have varied further downward to a
sentence of 84 months in prison.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a
substantively unreasonable sentence, as the record shows the court considered the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and did not overlook a relevant factor or err in weighing the
factors. 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). Further, the sentence was
below the Guidelines range. See United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th
Cir. 2009).
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
affirm, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.