United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 05-3648
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Eastern District of Missouri.
David Ellison, *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: November 2, 2006
Filed: November 3, 2006
___________
Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
David Ellison appeals the 33-month prison sentence the district court1 imposed
after he pleaded guilty to one count of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344.
His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the court erred in sentencing Ellison to
imprisonment instead of placing him on home confinement so that he would be able
to continue working to pay restitution and support his family.
1
The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri.
We conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable: the district court properly
considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in sentencing Ellison at the bottom of the
Guidelines range, and nothing in the record rebuts the presumption that the sentence
is reasonable. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 260-64 (2005) (appellate
courts should review post-Booker sentences for unreasonableness; district courts must
consult Guidelines and take them into account when sentencing, along with other
§ 3553(a) factors); United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (sentence
within applicable Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable and burden is on
defendant to rebut that presumption), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005); United
States v. Tobacco, 428 F.3d 1148, 1151 (8th Cir. 2005) (presumption of
reasonableness can be rebutted if district court failed to consider relevant factor that
should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to improper or
irrelevant factor, or considered only appropriate factors but committed clear error of
judgment in weighing them).
Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we
find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment and
we grant counsel leave to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-