Case Name: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Markell Jay HAMILTON, also known as Poo Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-01-25
Citations: 709 F. App'x 425
Docket Number: No. 17-1378
Parties: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Markell Jay HAMILTON, also known as Poo Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 709
Pages: 425–426

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Markell Jay HAMILTON, also known as Poo Defendant-Appellant
No. 17-1378
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: December 11, 2017
Filed: January 25, 2018
Dan Chatham, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Markell Jay Hamilton, Pro Se
John D. Jacobsen, Jacobsen & Johnson, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Defendant-Appellant
Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Markell Hamilton directly appeals after the he pled guilty to a drug charge, and the district court sentenced him to an above-Guidelines-range prison term. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Hamilton has filed a pro se brief, arguing, as relevant, that the district court plainly erred in calculating his criminal history score by including his Illinois conviction for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, because a portion of the relevant statute had been ruled unconstitutional by the Illinois Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit.
After careful review of the record and the parties' arguments on appeal, we vacate Hamilton's sentence and remand for resentencing for the district court to consider Hamilton's criminal-history argument in the first instance. We express no opinion as to the merits of this argument, and we note that it is unclear from the record whether Hamilton was convicted under a portion of the statute that has been ruled unconstitutional. Counsel's motion to withdraw is denied.