United States of America v. Kevin Cunningham

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1408
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Kevin Cunningham
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: September 12, 2024
Filed: September 17, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
After this court vacated Kevin Cunningham’s sentence for a drug conspiracy
offense and remanded for resentencing, the district court1 imposed a sentence of 60
1The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

months in prison to be served consecutively to the undischarged sentence imposed
in a separate federal case. Cunningham appeals, and his counsel has moved to
withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
arguing that the district court’s decision to impose a consecutive sentence resulted in
a substantively unreasonable sentence. Cunningham has filed a supplemental brief
also challenging his sentence.
Upon careful review, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion
in imposing a consecutive sentence. See United States v. Nelson, 982 F.3d 1141,
1146 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard of review). The court considered the factors listed in
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the record, and Cunningham’s argument in favor of a concurrent
sentence; and the court did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See United States
v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (district court abuses its
discretion when it considers relevant factor that should have received significant
weight, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear
error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3584 (district
court may impose concurrent or consecutive sentences and shall consider § 3553(a)
factors). Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw and affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --