United States v. Marcus Harmon-Wright

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: November 30, 2021
• Docket: 21-2241
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 21-2241 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Marcus DeShawn Harmon-Wright

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

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

Submitted: November 23, 2021 Filed: November 30, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

Marcus Harmon-Wright appeals the above-Guidelines sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pled guilty to a firearms offense. 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), arguing that the district court erred by applying an upward departure, and that the sentence is unreasonable.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by departing upward from the Guidelines; and did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Vasquez, 552 F.3d 734, 738 (8th Cir. 2009) (departures from sentencing Guidelines are reviewed for abuse of discretion); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (sentences are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse of discretion standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors).

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

-2-