United States v. Lamel Brandon

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: September 14, 2023
• Docket: 22-3353
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 22-3353 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Lamel Brandon

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

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

Submitted: September 11, 2023 Filed: September 14, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Lamel Brandon appeals after he pleaded guilty to a firearm offense and the district court1 imposed a within-Guidelines sentence. His counsel has moved for

1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable. In a pro se brief, Brandon also challenges the sentence, contending that he possessed the firearm in connection with defending his son from an attack. He also raises claims of prosecutorial misconduct, vindictive prosecution, and selective prosecution.

After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Brandon. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461- 62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (stating that on appeal, a within-Guidelines-range sentence is presumed reasonable). We also conclude that the record does not support Brandon’s remaining pro se claims. See United States v. Hunter, 770 F.3d 740, 743 (8th Cir. 2014); United States v. Williams, 793 F.3d 957, 963 (8th Cir. 2015); Flowers v. City of Minneapolis, 558 F.3d 794, 798 (8th Cir. 2009).

We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw. ______________________________

-2-