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)
24-1001•United States of America v. Joseph Allen Bermingham
24-1001Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitApr 30, 2025
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-3085
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Joseph Allen Bermingham
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Harrison
____________
Submitted: April 18, 2025
Filed: April 23, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Joseph Bermingham appeals the within-Guidelines sentence the district court1
imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense pursuant to a written plea
1The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas.
-- 1 of 2 --
agreement. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, (1967), challenging the sentence and arguing it
created an unwarranted sentencing disparity with a co-defendant.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in sentencing Bermingham, as it properly considered the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors; there was no indication that it overlooked a relevant factor, or
committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors; and the sentence
was within the advisory Guidelines range. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d
455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review); see also United States v.
Castillo, 117 F.4th 1021, 1024-25 (8th Cir. 2024) (rejecting sentencing-disparity
argument based on differences between co-defendants); United States v. Callaway,
762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (on appeal, within-Guidelines sentence may be
presumed reasonable).
Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75
(1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, and grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.