United States of America v. Jeffery Stanbrough, also known as Jeffrey Allen Stanbrough

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 18-3400
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jeffery Stanbrough, also known as Jeffrey Allen Stanbrough
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
___________________________
No. 18-3401
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jeffery Stanbrough, also known as Jeffrey Allen Stanbrough
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeals from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Harrison
____________
Submitted: May 31, 2019
Filed: June 5, 2019
[Unpublished]
____________

-- 1 of 2 --

Before ERICKSON, WOLLMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated cases, Jeffery Stanbrough appeals the revocation sentence
the district court imposed after he was found to have violated the terms of his1
supervised release, and the sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to a new drug
offense. His counsel has filed a brief that cites Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), and challenges the reasonableness of each sentence. Counsel has also moved
for leave to withdraw.
We conclude that the district court imposed a substantively reasonable sentence
in each case. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en
banc) (discussing substantive reasonableness); see also United States v. McGhee, 869
F.3d 703, 705 (8th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (substantive reasonableness of revocation
sentence is reviewed under same abuse-of-discretion standard that is applied to initial
sentencing decisions); United States v. Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878, 887 (8th Cir. 2011)
(district court need not mechanically recite 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, so long as it
is clear from the record that court considered them in determining sentence).
We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75 (1988), and there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. The judgments are
affirmed, and counsel is granted leave to withdraw.
______________________________
The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, United States District Judge for the Western1
District of Arkansas.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --