United States v. Devon Glover

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-3277

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Devon Dwayne Reginald Glover, also known as Chiraq

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota

____________

Submitted: March 28, 2023 Filed: April 5, 2023

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Devon Glover appeals the statutory minimum sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to firearm offenses. His counsel has moved for leave to

1 The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the district court erred in failing to conduct a competency hearing and challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

Upon careful review, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in forgoing a hearing or additional factfinding regarding Glover’s competency. See United States v. Turner, 644 F.3d 713, 723 (8th Cir. 2011) (reviewing district court’s decision not to hold a competency hearing for abuse of discretion); United States v. Jones, 23 F.3d 1307, 1309 (8th Cir. 1994) (recognizing discretion to hold or forgo evidentiary hearing when report submitted to court indicates defendant is competent). We also conclude the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; district court abuses its discretion when it fails to consider a relevant factor, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant fact, or commits a clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors). Further, Glover received the shortest sentence possible. See United States v. Woods, 717 F.3d 654, 659 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting statutory minimum sentence was not substantively unreasonable).

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 grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm.

______________________________