United States v. Marquis Huntley

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 22-3673 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Marquis Huntley

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

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

Submitted: May 9, 2023 Filed: May 12, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________

Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Marquis Huntley appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to drug offenses. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has

1 The Honorable John A. Ross, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of Huntley’s prison sentence.

Having reviewed the record under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard of review, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 (2007), we conclude Huntley’s prison sentence was not substantively unreasonable. The district court considered the statutory sentencing factors and did not overlook a relevant factor, give significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commit a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). The district court, moreover, acted within its discretion by varying upward on this record. See Feemster, 572 F.3d at 461-62; see also United States v. Kelley, 652 F.3d 915, 918 (8th Cir. 2011). Finally, 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 of the district court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________

-2-