United States of America v. Freddie Franklin

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-3388
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Freddie Franklin
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: May 22, 2026
Filed: May 28, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Freddie Franklin appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after
revoking his term of supervised release. His counsel now moves to withdraw.
1 The Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms and grants the motion
to withdraw.
Upon careful review, this court concludes that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in sentencing Franklin. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-
17 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455,
461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (sentence may be unreasonable if district court fails
to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor,
or commits a clear error of judgment in weighing factors); United States v. McSmith,
968 F.3d 731, 737 (8th Cir. 2020) (disagreement with how district court weighed
factors does not demonstrate abuse of discretion); United States v. Cloud, 956 F.3d
985, 988 (8th Cir. 2019) (affirming sentence, even though it was unclear if district
court relied on improper factor, as the record demonstrated that the court did not
afford that factor significant weight and its main concerns were the seriousness of
the instant offense, the defendant’s history and characteristics, and the need to
protect the public); see also United States v. Townsend, 617 F.3d 991, 994-95 (8th
Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (within-Guidelines-range sentences are presumptively
reasonable on appeal). Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in ordering the
sentence to be served consecutively to any state court sentences imposed on account
of the incidents underlying the release conditions violations. See United States v.
Johnson, 827 F.3d 740, 745 (8th Cir. 2016).
To the extent Franklin raises an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, this
court declines to consider it on direct appeal. See United States v. Oliver, 950 F.3d
556, 566 (8th Cir. 2020) (appellate court reviews such claims on direct appeal only
where record has been fully developed, where not to act would amount to plain
miscarriage of justice, or where counsel’s error is readily apparent).
The judgment is affirmed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --