United States v. Majok Majok

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: June 16, 2025
• Docket: 25-1122
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 25-1122 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Majok Majok, also known as Jok, also known as Magok Magok

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Central ____________

Submitted: June 11, 2025 Filed: June 16, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________

Before SMITH, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Majok Majok appeals the below-Guidelines sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to racketeering, drug, and firearms offenses. His counsel

1 The Honorable Stephen H. Locher, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, 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 below 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); cf. United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (when district court varies below Guidelines range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that court abused its discretion in not varying further).

Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________

-2-