United States of America v. Johnny Mack Hill, Jr.

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-2822
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Johnny Mack Hill, Jr.
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
____________
Submitted: March 7, 2024
Filed: March 12, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Johnny Mack Hill appeals after he pleaded guilty to drug and firearm offenses,
and the district court1 imposed a prison sentence to run consecutively to undischarged
1The Honorable C.J. Williams, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the
Northern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

state sentences. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as substantively
unreasonable.
We conclude that the sentence was not unreasonable. See United States v.
Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review). The
district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the undischarged state
sentence, and Hill’s argument against running the sentences consecutively; and there
is no indication that the court failed to consider a relevant factor, gave significant
weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in
weighing an appropriate factor. See id.; United States v. McDonald, 521 F.3d 975,
980 (8th Cir. 2008) (district court has “wide discretion” to order sentence to be served
consecutively to undischarged sentence); see also United States v. Hall, 825 F.3d 373,
376 (8th Cir. 2016) (no abuse of discretion where district court considered § 3553(a)
factors and recognized its discretion to run sentences concurrently but declined to do
so).
This court has reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and has found no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, the judgment
is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --