United States v. Shawn Hill

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-3771

___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Shawn Thomas Hill,

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.

____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith

____________

Submitted: April 27, 2022 Filed: May 12, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Shawn Hill appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief

1 The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the reasonableness of the sentence. Hill has filed a motion for new counsel on appeal, in which he also challenges the sentence.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court adequately considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, as the court specifically stated that Hill’s sentence would be based on the factors and explicitly mentioned several of the factors. See United States v. Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878, 887 (8th Cir. 2011). We also conclude that Hill’s sentence was not unreasonable, as there is no indication that the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014).

As to the arguments in Hill’s motion for counsel, we find no error in the court’s application of a 2-level role enhancement. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1; United States v. Jackson, 639 F.3d 479, 483 (8th Cir. 2011). Any argument that counsel was ineffective would be better addressed on collateral review. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006).

We have 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, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Hill’s motion for new counsel on appeal, and his untimely motion for an extension of time within which to file a pro se supplemental brief are denied.

______________________________