United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 23-1543

___________________________

 

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Travon Lavelle Blackman

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota

____________

Submitted: July 24, 2023

Filed: July 27, 2023

[Unpublished]

____________

 

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________

 

PER CURIAM.

Travon Lavelle Blackman appeals after he pled guilty to a firearm offense. 

The district court1 imposed an enhanced sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3147(1) to run 

 1The Honorable Wilhelmina M. Wright, United States District Judge for the 

District of Minnesota.
-2- 

consecutively to an undischarged federal sentence. Having jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1291, this court 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 sentence is substantively 

unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately explain its reasoning for 

running the enhanced sentenced consecutively to the undischarged sentence, and 

procedurally unreasonable because the court did not explain how it applied U.S.S.G. 

§ 5G1.3 in concluding the sentences should be run consecutively. 

The sentence was neither procedurally, nor substantively, unreasonable. See 

United States v. Pierson, No. 22-1918, 2023 WL 4442996, at *6 (8th Cir. July 11, 

2023) (reasonableness of sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion). The district 

court appropriately considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and adequately 

explained its decision to run the instant and prior sentences consecutively. See 

United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) 

(procedural errors include failing to consider § 3553(a) factors and adequately 

explain chosen sentence; 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. McDonald, 

521 F.3d 975, 980 (8th Cir. 2008) (district court has “wide discretion” to order 

sentence to be served consecutively to undischarged sentence); see also 18 U.S.C. § 

3584(a), (b) (“if a term of imprisonment is imposed on a defendant who is already 

subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment, the terms may run concurrently or 

consecutively”; court should consider § 3553(a) factors in making such 

determination); U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3; United States v. Latham, 667 Fed. Appx. 594, 

595 (8th Cir. 2016) (unpublished per curiam) (noting district court need not twice 

recite considerations under § 3553(a); court’s discussion of the relevant factors left 

“no doubt” why it imposed a consecutive sentence). 
-3- 

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.

______________________________