United States of America v. Rachael Shackelford

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 19-3180
___________________________
United States of America,
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,
v.
Rachael Shackelford,
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
____________
Submitted: July 20, 2020
Filed: July 27, 2020
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Rachael Shackelford appeals her sentence in a criminal case. She pleaded guilty
to possessing with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine, and

-- 1 of 2 --

the district court1 sentenced her within the advisory sentencing guideline range. Her
counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the reasonableness of the sentence.
After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not
abuse its discretion by imposing a sentence within the advisory range. 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
relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009)
(en banc); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014).
Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75
(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. The judgment of the district court
is affirmed, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
1The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Arkansas.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --