United States of America v. David Lee Davis, Jr.

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-3440
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
David Lee Davis, Jr.
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: October 2, 2025
Filed: October 7, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
David Davis appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he
pleaded guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and
1The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), discussing potential
arguments challenging Davis’s sentence.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in
sentencing Davis. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62, 464 (8th Cir.
2009) (en banc) (in reviewing sentence, appellate court first ensures that district court
committed no significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating Guidelines
range, then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-
discretion standard). To the extent Davis contends that the government withheld
evidence material to sentencing, we conclude that he failed to show that the
government failed to disclose any such information. See Dye v. Stender, 208 F.3d
662, 665 (8th Cir. 2000) (prosecution is required to divulge all evidence favorable to
accused that is material either to guilt or punishment). We also defer any claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel for collateral review. See United States v. McAdory,
501 F.3d 868, 872 (8th Cir. 2007) (noting ineffective-assistance claims are ordinarily
deferred to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings).
Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to 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 --