Court Opinion

ID: 9911980
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-21 16:01:15.570618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:56.890729
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
          For the Eighth Circuit
      ___________________________

              No. 23-2477
      ___________________________

          United States of America

                    Plaintiff - Appellee

                       v.

                Micah Gordon

                Defendant - Appellant
      ___________________________

              No. 23-2479
      ___________________________

          United States of America

                    Plaintiff - Appellee

                       v.

                Micah Gordon

                  Defendant - Appellant
                ____________

  Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
                ____________
                           Submitted: December 18, 2023
                             Filed: December 21, 2023
                                   [Unpublished]
                                   ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

       In these consolidated appeals, Micah J. Gordon appeals the below Guidelines
sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to conspiracy to commit
murder for hire pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, and the
consecutive prison sentence the district court imposed upon revocation of his
supervised release in a separate case. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
this court dismisses in part and otherwise affirms.

       Counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the district court abused its discretion in
ordering consecutive sentences. The district court did not abuse its discretion in
imposing a consecutive sentence upon revocation of Gordon’s supervised release.
See United States v. Valure, 835 F.3d 789, 790-91 (8th Cir. 2016) (reviewing
revocation sentencing decision for abuse of discretion); U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f)
(revocation sentence shall be ordered to be served consecutively to any sentence of
imprisonment defendant is serving); 18 U.S.C. § 3584 (district court may impose
consecutive or concurrent sentences and shall consider 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors).
The record demonstrates the district court weighed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors
and imposed a sentence within the statutory maximum. See United States v. Larison,
432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir. 2006) (revocation sentence may be unreasonable if
district court fails to consider relevant § 3553(a) factor, gives significant weight to

      1
       The Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Missouri.
                                   -2-
improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment); 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(3) (2-year maximum revocation prison term for Class C felony).

      This court concludes that the appeal waiver is enforceable as to counsel’s
argument challenging Gordon’s sentence for conspiracy to commit murder for hire.
The argument falls within the scope of the appeal waiver, the record shows that
Gordon entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and
voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver.
See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review);
United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal
waiver will be enforced if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly
and voluntarily entered into plea agreement and appeal waiver, and enforcing waiver
would not result in miscarriage of justice); see also 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a) (10-year
maximum sentence).

      Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75
(1988), this court finds no non-frivolous issues for appeal.

      The judgment in No. 23-2477 is affirmed. The appeal in No. 23-2479 is
dismissed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
                      ______________________________

                                        -3-