Court Opinion

ID: 9927601
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-29 16:02:45.261897+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:52.824924
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 23-2466
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                               Derrick Maurice Scott

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

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

                          Submitted: December 28, 2023
                             Filed: January 29, 2024
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

       Derrick Maurice Scott appeals after a jury found him guilty of four drug and
firearm offenses. The district court1 imposed the statutory-minimum prison sentence

      1
      The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.
on Count 2, and varied downward from the Guidelines and imposed sentences of time
served on Counts 1, 3, and 4. Scott’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and
has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In the Anders brief,
counsel challenges the sentences imposed on Counts 1, 3, and 4, arguing that the
district court abused its discretion by not imposing an even lower sentence or clearly
erred by improperly weighing the sentencing factors.

        Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a
substantively unreasonable sentence. The record shows that the court considered the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (explaining
that a sentencing court abuses its discretion when it fails to consider a relevant factor,
gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commits a clear error
of judgment in weighing the appropriate factors).

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

                                           -2-