United States of America v. Marcius Haywood

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-3273
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Marcius Haywood
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
____________
Submitted: May 20, 2026
Filed: May 26, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Marcius Haywood appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he
pleaded guilty to a drug offense pursuant to a written plea agreement. His counsel
1The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas.

-- 1 of 2 --

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
After careful review, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion
in sentencing Haywood. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th
Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review); see also United States v. Timberlake, 679
F.3d 1008, 1012 (8th Cir. 2012) (district court is presumed to have considered
mitigating factors counsel discussed at sentencing and has substantial latitude to
weigh sentencing factors); United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir.
2013) (noting that it is “nearly inconceivable” that the district court abused its
discretion in not varying further when it varied below the United States Sentencing
Guidelines Manual range). Further, having independently reviewed the record under
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --