United States of America v. Marcellus Corey-Parham

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1796
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Marcellus Corey-Parham
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: November 20, 2025
Filed: November 25, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Marcellus Corey-Parham appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence
imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to a firearm offense. His counsel
1The Honorable Sarah E. Pitlyk, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a
substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455,
461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-
discretion standard; discussing substantive reasonableness); United States v.
Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (on appeal, within-Guidelines-range
sentence may be presumed reasonable); United States v. Farmer, 647 F.3d 1175, 1179
(8th Cir. 2011) (simply because district court weighed relevant factors more heavily
than defendant preferred does not mean it abused discretion); United States v.
Anderson, 90 F.4th 1226, 1227 (8th Cir. 2024) (district court has wide latitude to
weigh 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and to assign some factors greater weight than
others, including discretion to assign more weight to offense’s nature and
circumstances than to defendant’s mitigating personal characteristics).
We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --