United States v. Angelo Scott

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: May 23, 2023
• Docket: 22-3345
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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Submitted: May 19, 2023 Filed: May 23, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________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