United States of America v. Clayton Key Craddock

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-3630
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Clayton Key Craddock
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City
____________
Submitted: May 7, 2025
Filed: May 12, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Clayton Key Craddock appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after
he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw,
1The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the
sentence as substantively unreasonable.
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, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en
banc) (this court considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under
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); United States v. Stults, 575
F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009) (where court makes individualized assessment based
on facts presented, addressing defendant’s proffered information in consideration of
§ 3553(a) factors, sentence is not unreasonable); see also United States v. St. Claire,
831 F.3d 1039, 1043 (8th Cir. 2016) (within-Guidelines sentence is accorded
presumption of substantive reasonableness on appeal). The court has independently
reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and finds no
nonfrivolous issues for appeal.
The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --