From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Burnett

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
Apr 29, 2020
No. 19-2989 (8th Cir. Apr. 29, 2020)

Opinion

No. 19-2989

04-29-2020

United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Damien Deandre Burnett, also known as Luck Defendant - Appellant


Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota [Unpublished] Before BENTON, WOLLMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.

Damien Burnett appeals after he pled guilty to a drug offense, and the district court sentenced him to a prison term below the advisory range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("Guidelines"). His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing Burnett's sentence is substantively unreasonable. Burnett has filed a pro se brief reiterating the arguments in the Anders brief, and has moved for new counsel.

The Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. --------

We conclude the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (describing appellate review of sentence for procedural error and then substantive reasonableness). First, we conclude the district court's factual findings were not clearly erroneous in light of the evidence presented at sentencing. See United States v. Bryant, 913 F.3d 783, 786 (8th Cir. 2019) (reviewing application of Guidelines de novo and findings of fact for clear error). Next, we conclude Burnett's sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See Feemster, 572 F.3d at 461-62 (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and discussing substantive reasonableness); see also United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting it is "nearly inconceivable" a district court abused its discretion by not varying downward further when it has varied below the Guidelines range).

Having reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we deny Burnett's motion for appointment of new counsel, we affirm, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.


Summaries of

United States v. Burnett

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
Apr 29, 2020
No. 19-2989 (8th Cir. Apr. 29, 2020)
Case details for

United States v. Burnett

Case Details

Full title:United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Damien Deandre Burnett…

Court:United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

Date published: Apr 29, 2020

Citations

No. 19-2989 (8th Cir. Apr. 29, 2020)