Court Opinion

ID: 9949757
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-12 16:00:32.000533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:31:46.200563
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-2822
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                            v.

                                Johnny Mack Hill, Jr.

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                      Appeal from United States District Court
                  for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
                                   ____________

                             Submitted: March 7, 2024
                              Filed: March 12, 2024
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before SHEPHERD, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Johnny Mack Hill appeals after he pleaded guilty to drug and firearm offenses,
and the district court1 imposed a prison sentence to run consecutively to undischarged

      1
      The Honorable C.J. Williams, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the
Northern District of Iowa.
state sentences. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as substantively
unreasonable.

       We conclude that the sentence was not unreasonable. See United States v.
Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review). The
district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the undischarged state
sentence, and Hill’s argument against running the sentences consecutively; and there
is no indication that the court failed to consider a relevant factor, gave significant
weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in
weighing an appropriate factor. See id.; 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 United States v. Hall, 825 F.3d 373,
376 (8th Cir. 2016) (no abuse of discretion where district court considered § 3553(a)
factors and recognized its discretion to run sentences concurrently but declined to do
so).

        This court has reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and has found no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, the judgment
is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
                         ______________________________

                                          -2-