United States of America v. Colton Rickels

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 26-1434
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Colton Rickels
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
____________
Submitted: August 6, 2026
Filed: August 11, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and TRAYNOR, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Colton Rickels appeals after he pleaded guilty to failing to update his sex-
offender registration and the district court1 imposed a within-Guidelines sentence, to
1The Honorable C.J. Williams, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the
Northern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

run consecutive to the sentence Rickels received upon the revocation of his
supervised release in a separate action. His counsel 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 Rickels’s within-Guidelines-range sentence and its
imposition consecutive to his revocation sentence were not unreasonable. See United
States v. Nelson, 982 F.3d 1141, 1146 (8th Cir. 2020) (reviewing the substantive
reasonableness of a sentence and its imposition consecutive to another sentence under
a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; a within-Guidelines-range sentence is
presumed to be reasonable). 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
that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an improper
or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant
factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc).
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 --