The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
20-2947•United States of America v. Marcus DeShawn Harmon-Wright
20-2947Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitNov 30, 2021
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 21-2241
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Marcus DeShawn Harmon-Wright
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: November 23, 2021
Filed: November 30, 2021
[Unpublished]
____________
Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Marcus Harmon-Wright appeals the above-Guidelines sentence imposed by the
district court1 after he pled guilty to a firearms offense. His counsel has moved for
1The Honorable C. J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.
-- 1 of 2 --
leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), arguing that the district court erred by applying an upward departure, and that
the sentence is unreasonable.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion by departing upward from the Guidelines; and did not impose a
substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors
listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See
United States v. Vasquez, 552 F.3d 734, 738 (8th Cir. 2009) (departures from
sentencing Guidelines are reviewed for abuse of discretion); United States v.
Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (sentences are reviewed for
substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse of discretion standard; abuse of
discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight
to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing
appropriate factors).
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
affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.