Background
Burrell Jackson appealed the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to drug offenses. The appeal came to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids. The district judge identified in the opinion’s footnote was the Honorable C.J. Williams, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.
On appeal, Jackson’s counsel moved for leave to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). An Anders filing is the mechanism appointed counsel uses when, after conscientious examination, counsel concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and seeks permission to withdraw while still identifying anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. In this case, counsel’s Anders brief challenged the substantive reasonableness of the sentence Jackson received.
The Eighth Circuit decided the case in an unpublished per curiam opinion. The case was submitted on November 3, 2026, and filed on November 6, 2026. The panel consisted of L.R. Smith, Benton, and Traynor, Circuit Judges.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. After careful review, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Jackson. The court cited United States v. Lozoya, 623 F.3d 624, 625 (8th Cir. 2010), for the governing standard: sentencing decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Applying that standard, the court found that the record reflected adequate consideration of the relevant sentencing factors. It further concluded that the district court did not give significant weight to an improper factor and did not commit a clear error of judgment in imposing a within-Guidelines term. The court grounded that framework in United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc), which explains that a sentence may be unreasonable if the district court fails to consider a relevant factor, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commits a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors.
The court also relied on United States v. Williams, 171 F.4th 1086, 1092-93 (8th Cir. 2026), for two related propositions: a within-Guidelines sentence is presumed reasonable, and a defendant’s mere disagreement with the district court’s weighing of relevant factors is insufficient to warrant reversal. Because Jackson’s sentence fell within the Guidelines range and the record showed proper consideration of the sentencing factors, the court rejected the substantive-reasonableness challenge raised in counsel’s Anders brief.
Finally, the court independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. It therefore granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirmed the sentence.
Key Takeaways
- The Eighth Circuit reviewed the sentence for abuse of discretion under United States v. Lozoya and found none.
- The record showed that the district court adequately considered the relevant sentencing factors and neither relied significantly on an improper factor nor committed a clear error of judgment.
- A within-Guidelines sentence is presumed reasonable, and disagreement with the district court’s weighing of the factors is not enough to obtain reversal.
- After independent review under Penson v. Ohio, the court found no nonfrivolous issues, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed.
Why It Matters
This unpublished per curiam decision is a routine but instructive example of how the Eighth Circuit handles Anders appeals challenging the substantive reasonableness of a within-Guidelines sentence. It shows the court applying the familiar abuse-of-discretion framework, confirming that the district court considered the relevant factors, and emphasizing the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to a within-Guidelines term.
The decision also illustrates the practical effect of Anders and Penson in criminal appeals. When counsel moves to withdraw and the appellate court independently finds no nonfrivolous issues, the court may both grant withdrawal and affirm without further briefing on the merits. For practitioners, the case underscores how difficult it is to disturb a within-Guidelines sentence on substantive-reasonableness grounds when the record reflects adequate consideration of the sentencing factors.