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)
25-1338•United States of America v. Friday Deel Gardner, also known as Oblock
25-1338Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitMay 29, 2026
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-3412
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Friday Deel Gardner, also known as Oblock
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: May 26, 2026
Filed: May 29, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Friday Gardner appeals after he pleaded guilty to drug-distribution and firearm
offenses and the district court1 imposed a within-Guidelines sentence. His counsel
1The Honorable C.J. Williams, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the
Northern District of Iowa.
-- 1 of 2 --
has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable.
We conclude that the within-Guidelines sentence Gardner received is not
substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th
Cir. 2009) (en banc) (abuse of discretion standard of review); see also United States
v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (stating that a sentence within the
Guidelines range is presumed reasonable, and district courts are allowed wide latitude
in weighing the sentencing factors). The district court properly considered the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and there is no indication that the court overlooked a
relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or
committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors. See Feemster,
572 F.3d at 461. We have also 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 the judgment, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.