Opinion
No. 20-3037
06-04-2021
United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Seneca Rynell Mitchum Defendant - Appellant
Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern [Unpublished] Before GRUENDER, WOLLMAN, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.
Seneca Mitchum appeals the within-Guidelines sentence the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court failed to provide an adequate explanation for the sentence and that it imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence.
The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
We reject Mitchum's challenge to the district court's explanation of the sentence, as the court thoroughly discussed its reasons for imposing the sentence Mitchum received. See United States v. Krzyzaniak, 702 F.3d 1082, 1085 (8th Cir. 2013) (explanation of sentence must set forth enough to satisfy appellate court that district court considered parties' arguments and had reasoned basis for exercising its authority; explanation is sufficient if record as whole demonstrates that court considered relevant factors); see also United States v. Chavarria-Ortiz, 828 F.3d 668, 670-71 (8th Cir. 2016) (if defendant fails to object to adequacy of district court's explanation of sentence, this court reviews for plain error). In addition, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (considering substantive reasonableness of sentence under totality of circumstances; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors); see also United States v. St. Claire, 831 F.3d 1039, 1043 (8th Cir. 2016) (within-Guidelines sentence is accorded presumption of substantive reasonableness on appeal).
Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw. The judgment is affirmed.