United States of America v. Gabriel Roubideaux

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-2131
___________________________
United States of America,
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,
v.
Gabriel Roubideaux,
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Central
____________
Submitted: October 12, 2022
Filed: October 27, 2022
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Gabriel Roubideaux appeals a sentence imposed by the district court1 after he
pleaded guilty to arson. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under
1The Honorable Roberto Lange, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the District of South Dakota.

-- 1 of 2 --

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the restitution order, the
guidelines calculation, and the reasonableness of the sentence.
We conclude that the district court did not plainly err in ordering Roubideaux
to pay $22,675 in restitution, as the government presented the investigator’s
testimony, the victim’s sworn declaration outlining her losses, and photographs of the
trailer home before and after the fire. See United States v. Clausen, 949 F.3d 1076,
1081 (8th Cir. 2020). The district court also did not err in applying a base offense
level of 24, as the offense involved the destruction of a dwelling, and the guideline
does not require specific intent to destroy a dwelling. See U.S.S.G. § 2K1.4(a)(1)(B).
Finally, the court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as there is
no indication that it overlooked a relevant factor, 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, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009)
(en banc).
We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --