United States v. Johnny Hill, Jr.

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-2822

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Johnny Mack Hill, Jr.

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________

Submitted: March 7, 2024 Filed: March 12, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SHEPHERD, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Johnny Mack Hill appeals after he pleaded guilty to drug and firearm offenses, and the district court1 imposed a prison sentence to run consecutively to undischarged

1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

state sentences. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable.

We conclude that the sentence was not unreasonable. See United States v.

Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review). The district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the undischarged state sentence, and Hill’s argument against running the sentences consecutively; and there is no indication that the court failed to consider a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing an appropriate factor. See id.; United States v. McDonald, 521 F.3d 975, 980 (8th Cir. 2008) (district court has “wide discretion” to order sentence to be served consecutively to undischarged sentence); see also United States v. Hall, 825 F.3d 373, 376 (8th Cir. 2016) (no abuse of discretion where district court considered § 3553(a) factors and recognized its discretion to run sentences concurrently but declined to do so).

This court has reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and has found no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

______________________________