United States v. Kendrick Calloway
United States v. Kendrick Calloway
Opinion
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________
No. 21-2706 ___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Kendrick D. Calloway
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________
Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau ____________
Submitted: February 2, 2022 Filed: February 7, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________
Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________
PER CURIAM.
Kendrick Calloway received a 120-month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). In an Anders brief, Calloway’s counsel challenges two enhancements and suggests that the overall sentence is substantively unreasonable. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We conclude that the district court 1 did not clearly err in determining that there was an adequate factual basis for the challenged enhancements. See United States v. Turner, 781 F.3d 374, 393 (8th Cir. 2015). We also conclude that the resulting sentence was substantively reasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461–62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence under “a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard” (quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (stating that a within-Guidelines-range sentence is presumptively reasonable). The record establishes that the district court sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment. See United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923–24 (8th Cir. 2006).
Finally, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude that no other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82-83 (1988). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel permission to withdraw. ______________________________
1 The Honorable Stephen R. Clark, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
-2-
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished