United States v. Marcus Harmon-Wright ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 21-2241
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Marcus DeShawn Harmon-Wright
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern
    ____________
    Submitted: November 23, 2021
    Filed: November 30, 2021
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Marcus Harmon-Wright appeals the above-Guidelines sentence imposed by the
    district court1 after he pled guilty to a firearms offense. 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), arguing that the district court erred by applying an upward departure, and that
    the sentence is unreasonable.
    Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
    discretion by departing upward from the Guidelines; and did not impose a
    substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors
    listed in 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a), and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See
    United States v. Vasquez, 
    552 F.3d 734
    , 738 (8th Cir. 2009) (departures from
    sentencing Guidelines are reviewed for abuse of discretion); United States v.
    Feemster, 
    572 F.3d 455
    , 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (sentences are reviewed for
    substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse of discretion standard; abuse of
    discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight
    to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing
    appropriate factors).
    We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
     (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
    affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-2241

Filed Date: 11/30/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/30/2021