U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 2024

United States v. Channing Williams

United States v. Channing Williams
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Decided July 19, 2024

United States v. Channing Williams

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 23-3494 ___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Channing Tyler Williams Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City ____________ Submitted: July 15, 2024 Filed: July 19, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________ Before KELLY, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM.

After pleading guilty to a firearms charge, Channing Williams received a 120- month prison sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). An Anders brief suggests the sentence is procedurally and substantively flawed. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

We conclude otherwise. The district court 1 correctly determined that Williams’s prior conviction for exhibiting a lethal weapon, see Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.030.1(4), was a crime of violence. See United States v. Larry, 51 F.4th 290, 291–92 (8th Cir. 2022); see also U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(1). It then calculated the advisory range, selected a sentence, and explained its reasoning. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion). In doing so, the 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. McDaniels, 19 F.4th 1065, 1067 (8th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (explaining that the district court has “wide latitude to weigh the relevant sentencing factors” and “weighing [them] differently than a defendant would have preferred does not alone justify reversal” (citation omitted)).

We have also 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. ______________________________

The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -2-

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.