Court Opinion

ID: 6335896
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-04-28 16:00:35.929811+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:05.059408
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
          For the Eighth Circuit
     ___________________________

             No. 21-2659
     ___________________________

           United States of America

      lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                         v.

           Augustus Quintrell Light

    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
       ___________________________

             No. 21-2677
     ___________________________

           United States of America

      lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                         v.

Augustus Quintrell Light, also known as Stow

    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                    ____________

 Appeals from United States District Court
      for the District of Minnesota
              ____________

          Submitted: April 18, 2022
            Filed: April 28, 2022
               [Unpublished]
               ____________
Before KELLY, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Augustus Light received a 120-month prison sentence for possession with
intent to distribute methamphetamine and an additional 18 months for violating the
conditions of supervised release. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A); see also 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). In an Anders brief, Light’s counsel suggests that neither
sentence is substantively reasonable. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
A supplemental pro se brief raises several other issues.

       Neither Light nor his counsel has raised any meritorious issues. Light’s guilty
plea in the drug-possession case was knowing and voluntary, see Nguyen v. United
States, 114 F.3d 699, 703–05 (8th Cir. 1997); the 120-month sentence he received
was substantively reasonable, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461–62
(8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); and he cannot pursue the suppression of evidence after
pleading guilty, see United States v. Limley, 510 F.3d 825, 827 (8th Cir. 2007).

      We did, however, spot one non-frivolous issue that we asked the parties to
address. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988). After reviewing their letter briefs,
we conclude that Light’s 18-month revocation sentence, combined with a previous
15-month sentence he received, exceeds the statutory maximum of 24 months. See
United States v. Hergott, 562 F.3d 968, 970 (8th Cir. 2009) (requiring the
aggregation of revocation sentences under the version of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) that
applied before the PROTECT Act took effect in 2003).

      We accordingly vacate the sentence in the revocation case and remand for
resentencing, but otherwise affirm.
                       ______________________________
                                         -2-