Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-24-02321/USCOURTS-ca8-24-02321-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marcus Medina
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 24-2321

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Marcus Medina

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville

____________ 

Submitted: December 10, 2024

Filed: December 13, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Marcus Medina appeals the within-Guidelines sentence the district court1

imposed after he pled guilty to intentionally distributing methamphetamine. Having 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

1

The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the 

Western District of Arkansas.

Appellate Case: 24-2321 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/13/2024 Entry ID: 5466082
-2- 

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

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the application of an enhancement for 

maintaining a premises for distributing drugs and the substantive reasonableness of 

the sentence. Upon careful review, this court concludes that the district court did 

not clearly err in applying the premises enhancement. See United States v. Miller, 

698 F.3d 699, 705, 707 (8th Cir. 2012) (clear error review; premises enhancement 

applied where premises was also defendant’s family home); United States v. Valdez, 

No. 21-3727, 2023 WL 3772682 (8th Cir. June 2, 2023) (unpublished per curiam) 

(premises enhancement applied where defendant used shop building at his personal 

residence to sell methamphetamine to informant in 2 controlled purchases and had 

directed informant to come to his shop for the sale). This court also concludes that 

the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as it 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 within 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. Miner, 544 

F.3d 930, 932 (8th Cir. 2008) (appellate court may presume sentence within properly 

calculated guidelines range is reasonable). 

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 judgment is affirmed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 24-2321 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/13/2024 Entry ID: 5466082