United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 21-3838
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Tavin Rodriguez Daudinot
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
___________________________
No. 21-3862
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Tavin Rodriguez Daudinot
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeals from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Central
____________
Submitted: June 29, 2022
Filed: July 12, 2022
[Unpublished]
____________
Before ERICKSON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, Tavin Daudinot appeals the sentence the district
court1 imposed at his consolidated sentencing hearing after he pleaded guilty to being
a felon in possession of a firearm and his supervised release was revoked. His
counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was unreasonable.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the sentence was not unreasonable, as
the record shows that the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, see
United States v. Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878, 887 (8th Cir. 2011), and there is no
indication that the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an
improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the
relevant factors, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62, 464 (8th Cir.
2009) (en banc) (sentences are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under
deferential abuse of discretion standard; 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); United States
v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-18 (8th Cir. 2009) (substantive reasonableness of
revocation sentence is reviewed under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard); see
also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (on appeal,
within-Guidelines sentence may be presumed reasonable).
We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
1
The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa.
-2-