The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
12-1041•United States of America v. Michael D. Holiway
12-1041Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitFeb 28, 2013
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 12-2612
___________________________
United States of America,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
Michael D. Holiway,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: February 7, 2013
Filed: February 14, 2013
[Unpublished]
____________
Before MURPHY, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Michael Holiway appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district
court 1 imposed after he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in
1The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri.
-- 1 of 2 --
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). His counsel has moved to withdraw,
and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the
sentence is greater than necessary to meet the statutory goals of sentencing.
Upon careful review, we find no basis for concluding that the district court
imposed a sentence that was greater than necessary to meet the statutory goals of
sentencing or otherwise abused its discretion in sentencing Holiway. See United
States v. Gall, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (discussing appellate court review of sentencing
decision under abuse-of-discretion standard; noting that appellate court may apply
presumption of reasonableness to within-Guidelines-range sentence); see also United
States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (describing ways in
which district court might be found to have committed abuse of discretion).
Finally, having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.