United States of America v. Michael Sean Russell

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1883
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Michael Sean Russell
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: November 26, 2024
Filed: December 6, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Michael Russell appeals the district court’s1 denial of his motion to withdraw
his guilty plea and the substantive reasonableness of the below-Guidelines sentence
the district court imposed after he pled guilty to a firearms offense and a drug
1 The Honorable Stephen H. Locher, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
offense. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court dismisses the appeal
of the denial of the motion to withdraw the guilty plea based on the appeal waiver,
and affirms the sentence.
Counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court erred in denying the
motion to withdraw the plea and challenging the sentence as substantively
unreasonable. Upon careful review, this court determines that the motion to
withdraw the plea falls within the scope of the appeal waiver. See United States v.
Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of appeal waiver).
Next, this court concludes that the district court did not impose a substantively
unreasonable sentence. The district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors, there is no indication that it overlooked a relevant factor or
committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors, and the sentence
was below the advisory Guidelines range. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d
455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (abuse of discretion review); United States v.
Anderson, 90 F.4th 1226, 1227 (8th Cir. 2024) (district court has wide latitude in
weighing relevant factors); United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th
Cir. 2013) (when district court varies below Guidelines range, it is “nearly
inconceivable” that court abused its discretion in not varying further). Having
independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988),
this court finds no non-frivolous issues for appeal.
The appeal is dismissed in part and affirmed in part, and counsel’s motion to
withdraw is granted.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --