United States v. Dairron Robinson, No. 23-3782 (8th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 23-3782 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Dairron Robinson lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: July 10, 2024 Filed: July 15, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Dairron Robinson appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. His counsel has moved to withdraw 1 The Honorable Matthew T. Schelp, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the reasonableness of the sentence. Upon careful review, we conclude the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (substantive reasonableness of sentence reviewed for abuse of discretion; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors); see also United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting that it is “nearly inconceivable” that district court abused its discretion in not varying further when it varied below Guidelines range). We have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
