United States of America v. Marcus Medina

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[Unpublished]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.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
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No. 21-3727, 2023 WL 3772682 (8th Cir. June 2, 2023) (unpublished per curiam)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 of 2 --