United States of America v. Devon Dwayne Reginald Glover, also known as Chiraq

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-3277
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Devon Dwayne Reginald Glover, also known as Chiraq
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: March 28, 2023
Filed: April 5, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Devon Glover appeals the statutory minimum sentence the district court1
imposed after he pled guilty to firearm offenses. His counsel has moved for leave to
1The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.

-- 1 of 2 --

withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
arguing the district court erred in failing to conduct a competency hearing and
challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Upon careful review, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion
in forgoing a hearing or additional factfinding regarding Glover’s competency. See
United States v. Turner, 644 F.3d 713, 723 (8th Cir. 2011) (reviewing district court’s
decision not to hold a competency hearing for abuse of discretion); United States v.
Jones, 23 F.3d 1307, 1309 (8th Cir. 1994) (recognizing discretion to hold or forgo
evidentiary hearing when report submitted to court indicates defendant is competent).
We also conclude 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 substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard; district court abuses its discretion when it fails to consider a relevant factor,
gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant fact, or commits a clear error of
judgment in weighing appropriate factors). Further, Glover received the shortest
sentence possible. See United States v. Woods, 717 F.3d 654, 659 (8th Cir. 2013)
(noting statutory minimum sentence was not substantively unreasonable).
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’s motion to withdraw and affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --