United States v. Justin Ellis

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: May 15, 2025
• Docket: 24-2908, 24-2945
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 24-2908 ___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Justin Ellis, also known as Jut

Defendant - Appellant ___________________________

No. 24-2945 ___________________________

Justin Ellis

Defendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________

Submitted: May 12, 2025 Filed: May 15, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated cases, Justin Ellis appeals the sentences the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a new drug offense, and his supervised release for a prior offense was revoked. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Ellis’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentences. Upon careful review, this court concludes that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence for the new offense, as it properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; there is no indication that it overlooked a relevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors; and the sentence was within the advisory Guidelines range. 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. Miner, 544 F.3d 930, 932 (8th Cir. 2008) (appellate court may presume sentence within properly calculated Guidelines range is reasonable). This court also concludes that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the revocation sentence, as there is no indication that it failed to consider a relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors, and the revocation sentence was within the statutory maximum. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 916 (8th Cir. 2009) (abuse of discretion review); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (maximum revocation prison term is 2 years if underlying offense is Class C felony); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) (district court may impose consecutive or concurrent sentences).

1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. -2- The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________

-3-