Court Opinion

ID: 9396672
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 16:00:43.624562+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:18.837106
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 22-3345
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                            v.

                                 Angelo Lavell Scott

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                    for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
                                  ____________

                              Submitted: May 19, 2023
                               Filed: May 23, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

       Angelo Scott appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed on re-sentencing
after granting his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to section 404(b) of the

      1
       The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Iowa.
First Step Act. His counsel moved to withdraw; tendered a brief in conformance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the denial of Scott’s motion
to continue the re-sentencing hearing and the sentence; and moved for an extension
of time for Scott to file motions for further review. We granted Scott permission to
file a pro se supplemental brief, denied the motion for extension of time as moot, and
deferred ruling on the motion to withdraw until the case was submitted on the merits.

      Upon careful review, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Scott’s request for a continuance made at the beginning of the re-sentencing
hearing, as he made no showing that he was prejudiced by the denial, and he
expressly declined to continue the hearing when the court offered to do so later in the
hearing. See United States v. Cotroneo, 89 F.3d 510, 514 (8th Cir. 1996). We further
conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sentence, as it
considered the parties’ arguments and relevant sentencing factors. See United States
v. Harris, 960 F.3d 1103, 1106 (8th Cir. 2020); see also United States v. Booker, 974
F.3d 869, 871 (8th Cir. 2020).

      Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm.
                     ______________________________

                                         -2-