United States v. Marcus Medina

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: December 13, 2024
• Docket: 24-2321
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 24-2321 ___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Marcus Medina

Defendant - Appellant ____________

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

Submitted: December 10, 2024 Filed: December 13, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

Marcus Medina appeals the within-Guidelines sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to intentionally distributing methamphetamine. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. Counsel moved for leave to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the application of an enhancement for maintaining a premises for distributing drugs and the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Upon careful review, this court concludes that the district court did not clearly err in applying the premises enhancement. See United States v. Miller, 698 F.3d 699, 705, 707 (8th Cir. 2012) (clear error review; premises enhancement applied where premises was also defendant’s family home); United States v. Valdez, No. 21-3727, 2023 WL 3772682 (8th Cir. June 2, 2023) (unpublished per curiam) (premises enhancement applied where defendant used shop building at his personal residence to sell methamphetamine to informant in 2 controlled purchases and had directed informant to come to his shop for the sale). This court also concludes 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 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).

Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), this court finds no non-frivolous issues for appeal.

The judgment is affirmed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________

-2-