United States of America v. Derrick Maurice Scott

22-3558Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitJan 31, 2024

Full text

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-2466
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Derrick Maurice Scott
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: December 28, 2023
Filed: January 29, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Derrick Maurice Scott appeals after a jury found him guilty of four drug and
firearm offenses. The district court1 imposed the statutory-minimum prison sentence
1The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.

-- 1 of 2 --

on Count 2, and varied downward from the Guidelines and imposed sentences of time
served on Counts 1, 3, and 4. Scott’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and
has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In the Anders brief,
counsel challenges the sentences imposed on Counts 1, 3, and 4, arguing that the
district court abused its discretion by not imposing an even lower sentence or clearly
erred by improperly weighing the sentencing factors.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a
substantively unreasonable sentence. The record shows that the court considered the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (explaining
that a sentencing court abuses its discretion when it fails to consider a relevant factor,
gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commits a clear error
of judgment in weighing the appropriate factors).
We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75 (1988), and find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment of the district court and grant counsel leave to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.