Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-24-01883/USCOURTS-ca8-24-01883-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Sean Russell
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 24-1883

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Michael Sean Russell

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern

____________ 

Submitted: November 26, 2024

Filed: December 6, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Michael Russell appeals the district court’s1 denial of his motion to withdraw 

his guilty plea and the substantive reasonableness of the below-Guidelines sentence 

the district court imposed after he pled guilty to a firearms offense and a drug 

1

The Honorable Stephen H. Locher, United States District Judge for the 

Southern District of Iowa.

Appellate Case: 24-1883 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/06/2024 Entry ID: 5463609
-2- 

offense. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court dismisses the appeal 

of the denial of the motion to withdraw the guilty plea based on the appeal waiver, 

and affirms the sentence.

Counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court erred in denying the 

motion to withdraw the plea and challenging the sentence as substantively 

unreasonable. Upon careful review, this court determines that the motion to 

withdraw the plea falls within the scope of the appeal waiver. See United States v. 

Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of appeal waiver). 

Next, this court concludes that the district court did not impose a substantively 

unreasonable sentence. The district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) factors, there is no indication that it overlooked a relevant factor or 

committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors, and the sentence 

was below the advisory Guidelines range. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 

455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (abuse of discretion review); United States v. 

Anderson, 90 F.4th 1226, 1227 (8th Cir. 2024) (district court has wide latitude in 

weighing relevant factors); United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th 

Cir. 2013) (when district court varies below Guidelines range, it is “nearly 

inconceivable” that court abused its discretion in not varying further). Having 

independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), 

this court finds no non-frivolous issues for appeal. 

The appeal is dismissed in part and affirmed in part, and counsel’s motion to 

withdraw is granted.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 24-1883 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/06/2024 Entry ID: 5463609