United States v. Kevin Cunningham

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: September 17, 2024
• Docket: 24-1408
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 24-1408 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Kevin Cunningham

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________

Submitted: September 12, 2024 Filed: September 17, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________

Before BENTON, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

After this court vacated Kevin Cunningham’s sentence for a drug conspiracy offense and remanded for resentencing, the district court1 imposed a sentence of 60

1 The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. months in prison to be served consecutively to the undischarged sentence imposed in a separate federal case. Cunningham appeals, and his counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court’s decision to impose a consecutive sentence resulted in a substantively unreasonable sentence. Cunningham has filed a supplemental brief also challenging his sentence.

Upon careful review, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a consecutive sentence. See United States v. Nelson, 982 F.3d 1141, 1146 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard of review). The court considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the record, and Cunningham’s argument in favor of a concurrent sentence; and the court did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (district court abuses its discretion when it considers relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3584 (district court may impose concurrent or consecutive sentences and shall consider § 3553(a) factors). Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw and affirm. ______________________________

-2-