United States v. Dewayne Baker

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 24-2586

___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Dewayne Baker, also known as Wolf

Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central

____________

Submitted: November 5, 2024 Filed: November 8, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Dewayne Baker appeals the above-Guidelines sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a federal

1 The Honorable James M. Moody Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

drug trafficking crime. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Counsel moved for leave to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. Upon careful review, this court first determines that the appeal is outside the scope of the appeal waiver in the written plea agreement. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of appeal waiver). Next, this court concludes that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as it properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; there was no indication that it overlooked a relevant factor or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors; and the upward variance was based on an individualized assessment of the facts. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (abuse of discretion review); United States v. Anderson, 90 F.4th 1226, 1227 (8th Cir. 2024) (district court has wide latitude in weighing relevant factors); United States v. Mangum, 625 F.3d 466, 469-70 (8th Cir. 2010) (upward variance reasonable where court makes individualized assessment based on facts presented).

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

The judgment is affirmed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

______________________________