United States of America v. Ronald Lee Robi

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-1825
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Ronald Lee Robi
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: September 14, 2023
Filed: September 19, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Ronald Robi appeals the above-Guidelines-range sentence imposed by the
district court1 after he pled guilty to a firearms offense. His counsel has moved for
1The Honorable Stephen H. Locher, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a
substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors
listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc)
(substantive reasonableness of sentence reviewed for abuse of discretion; abuse of
discretion occurs when district court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant
weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in
weighing appropriate factors).
We have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. We note, however,
that the written judgment’s statement that Robi was adjudicated guilty of an offense
under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) conflicts, in part, with the plea colloquy, which indicated
Robi pled guilty to violating only 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We modify the judgment
in relevant part to reflect that Robi was not adjudicated guilty under section
922(g)(9). See 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (appellate court may modify any judgment brought
before it for review); United States v. Drapeau, 644 F.3d 646, 656 (8th Cir. 2011)
(oral pronouncement prevails over contrary judgment).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment as modified, and we grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --