Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02766/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02766-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dewayne Laverdo Hamilton
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2766

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Dewayne Laverdo Hamilton, * Eastern District of Arkansas.

*

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

___________

Submitted: August 31, 2007

Filed: September 4, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Dewayne Hamilton pleaded guilty to conspiring to obstruct interstate commerce

by robbery (Hobbs Act robbery), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951; conspiring to

brandish a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), (o); and being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court1

 thereafter noted its consideration of the 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and sentenced Hamilton to concurrent 49-month prison terms

Appellate Case: 06-2766 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/04/2007 Entry ID: 3347853
-2-

on the robbery and felon-in-possession counts (using an advisory Guidelines range of

46-57 months), and a mandatory consecutive 84-month term on the brandishing count,

see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), (D)(ii), for a total of 133 months in prison, to be

followed by 5 years of supervised release. The court noted that the 133-month

sentence was to run concurrently with an undischarged state robbery sentence, with

credit for time served. Hamilton appeals, and in a brief under Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel asks this court to find the sentence unreasonable, or

cruel and unusual in violation of the Eighth Amendment. In a pro se letter, Hamilton

also raises a double jeopardy issue.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, and a sentence within the correctly

calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. See United States v.

Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir. 2005); see also U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(b) (where

statutorily required minimum sentence is greater than maximum of applicable

Guidelines range, statutorily required minimum sentence shall be Guidelines

sentence); Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007) (approving

presumption). We see no basis in the record for concluding that Hamilton’s sentence

is unreasonable. See United States v. Two Shields, 2007 WL 2301911, at *5 (8th Cir.

Aug. 14, 2007) (defendant overcomes presumption of reasonableness if district court

failed to consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gave

significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or weighed appropriate factors in

clearly erroneous way). In addition, his sentence does not amount to cruel and

unusual punishment, see United States v. Atteberry, 447 F.3d 562, 565 (8th Cir.

2006), or constitute a double jeopardy violation, see United States v. Leathers, 354

F.3d 955, 959-60 (8th Cir. 2004).

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm,

and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2766 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/04/2007 Entry ID: 3347853