Court Opinion

ID: 9394158
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-12 16:00:49.09322+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:57.602681
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 22-3673
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                                  Marquis Huntley

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                  for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
                                  ____________

                              Submitted: May 9, 2023
                               Filed: May 12, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
                        ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Marquis Huntley appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he
pleaded guilty to drug offenses. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has

      1
       The Honorable John A. Ross, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the
substantive reasonableness of Huntley’s prison sentence.

       Having reviewed the record under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard
of review, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 (2007), we conclude
Huntley’s prison sentence was not substantively unreasonable. The district court
considered the statutory sentencing factors and did not overlook a relevant factor,
give significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commit a clear error of
judgment in weighing relevant factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); United States v.
Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). The district court,
moreover, acted within its discretion by varying upward on this record. See Feemster,
572 F.3d at 461-62; see also United States v. Kelley, 652 F.3d 915, 918 (8th Cir.
2011). Finally, 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 of the district court and grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw.
                    ______________________________

                                         -2-