Court Opinion

ID: 9839836
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-14 15:01:30.843096+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:33.630846
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                           For the Eighth Circuit
                       ___________________________

                               No. 22-3353
                       ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                                   Lamel Brandon

                      lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                      ____________

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

                         Submitted: September 11, 2023
                           Filed: September 14, 2023
                                 [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

       Lamel Brandon appeals after he pleaded guilty to a firearm offense and the
district court1 imposed a within-Guidelines sentence. His counsel has moved for

      1
       The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.
leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable. In a pro se brief,
Brandon also challenges the sentence, contending that he possessed the firearm in
connection with defending his son from an attack. He also raises claims of
prosecutorial misconduct, vindictive prosecution, and selective prosecution.

       After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in sentencing Brandon. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-
62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review); see also United States v. Callaway,
762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (stating that on appeal, a within-Guidelines-range
sentence is presumed reasonable). We also conclude that the record does not support
Brandon’s remaining pro se claims. See United States v. Hunter, 770 F.3d 740, 743
(8th Cir. 2014); United States v. Williams, 793 F.3d 957, 963 (8th Cir. 2015); Flowers
v. City of Minneapolis, 558 F.3d 794, 798 (8th Cir. 2009).

      We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.
                      ______________________________

                                         -2-