United States of America v. Colby Lakeith Shannon, Jr.

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1227
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Colby Lakeith Shannon, Jr.
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
____________
Submitted: September 13, 2024
Filed: September 18, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Colby Shannon, Jr. appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he
pleaded guilty to firearm offenses under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(3) and 922(g)(9). His
1The Honorable C.J. Williams, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the
Northern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was unreasonable.
Shannon has filed a pro se brief challenging sections 922(g)(3) and 922(g)(9) as
facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in imposing
a sentence within the Guidelines range. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455,
461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (in reviewing sentences, appellate court first ensures no
significant procedural error occurred, then considers substantive reasonableness of
sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard); United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d
754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (on appeal, within-Guidelines-range sentence may be
presumed reasonable). We further conclude that Shannon’s facial challenges to
sections 922(g)(3) and 922(g)(9) fail under plain-error review, as he has not
demonstrated any error that was clear or obvious under current law. See United
States v. Nunez-Hernandez, 43 F.4th 857, 859-61 (8th Cir. 2022) (reviewing facial
constitutional challenge for plain error where it was raised for first time on appeal;
to succeed, appellant has to show, among other things, that there was clear or obvious
error under current law; case law must “provide a clear answer”).
We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. The judgment
is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --