United States v. Vicente Young

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: November 14, 2024
• Docket: 24-2016
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 24-2016 ___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Vicente V. Young

Defendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau ____________

Submitted: November 8, 2024 Filed: November 14, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________

Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Vicente Young appeals the within-Guidelines sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

1 The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. Counsel moved for leave to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was unconstitutional and substantively unreasonable. Upon careful review, this court concludes that Young’s constitutional challenge under N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), has been rejected by this circuit. See United States v. Anderson, 771 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (8th Cir. 2014) (de novo review of constitutionality of federal statute); United States v. Jackson, 110 F.4th 1120, 1125–26 (8th Cir. 2024) (rejecting argument that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face and as applied after Bruen). Next, this court 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 upward variance was based on an individualized assessment of the facts. 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) (on appeal, reviewing 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-