Court Opinion

ID: 9894359
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-01 16:00:49.362224+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:30.753362
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 23-2152
                        ___________________________

                            United States of America

                                     Plaintiff - Appellee

                                       v.

                          Michael Jermaine Hambrick

                                   Defendant - Appellant
                                 ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                   for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
                                 ____________

                          Submitted: October 27, 2023
                           Filed: November 1, 2023
                                [Unpublished]
                                ____________

Before BENTON, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM

       Michael Jermaine Hambrick pled guilty to an ammunition offense pursuant to
a written plea agreement. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court
affirms.
       Hambrick appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence the district court 1
imposed. Counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence. The district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence.
The court properly considered the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), as well as
Hambrick’s policy arguments. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62
(8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing substantive reasonableness under deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard; district court abuses its discretion when it fails to
consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or
commits a clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors); see also United
States v. Sharkey, 895 F.3d 1077, 1082 (8th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (concluding
district court did not abuse its discretion where it considered and rejected argument
based on policy disagreement with Guidelines). The court imposed a prison term
below the Guidelines range. See United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127
(8th Cir. 2013) (holding it is “nearly inconceivable” district court abused its
discretion in not varying further when it varied below Guidelines range).

      This court has independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and finds no non-frivolous issues currently ripe for appeal.

      The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
                      ______________________________

      1
       The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Iowa.
                                   -2-