United States of America v. Derrick Alvin Givens

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 20-1996
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Derrick Alvin Givens
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith
____________
Submitted: January 19, 2021
Filed: January 22, 2021
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Derrick Givens appeals after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense, and the district
court1 imposed a sentence of imprisonment below the advisory sentencing guidelines
1The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Arkansas.

-- 1 of 2 --

range. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of
Givens’s sentence and the special conditions of his supervised release.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an
unreasonable sentence. The court properly considered the factors set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a), and there is no indication that the court considered an improper or
irrelevant factor or committed a clear error in weighing relevant factors. See United
States v. Salazar-Aleman, 741 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir. 2013) (discussing appellate
review of sentencing decisions). We further conclude that the court did not plainly err
in imposing the unobjected-to special conditions of supervised release. See United
States v. Winston, 850 F.3d 377, 379-80 (8th Cir. 2017) (applying plain-error review
to objections to a special condition of supervised release that the defendant failed to
raise before the district court); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) (setting forth general criteria for
special conditions of supervised release).
In addition, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v.
Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --