United States of America v. Delonte Harris

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-3100
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Delonte Harris
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Western
____________
Submitted: June 18, 2025
Filed: June 24, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Delonte Harris appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled
guilty to robbery charges. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief
1The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the application of a 3-
level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(E) for brandishing or possessing a
dangerous weapon and the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
After a thorough review of the record, we conclude we need not reach the
merits of the arguments regarding the Guidelines increase, as any procedural error
was harmless because the district court identified the issue, stated that it would have
imposed the same sentence regardless of the Guidelines calculations, and provided
an alternative explanation for the sentence under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See
United States v. Holmes, 87 F.4th 910, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2023) (Guidelines calculation
error is harmless if district court indicated it would have imposed same sentence
under lower Guidelines range, identified contested issue and potentially erroneous
ruling, and provided adequate alternative legal and factual explanation for sentence).
Further, we conclude that the sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of
review; district court abuses its discretion when it fails to consider 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);
United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374, 379 (8th Cir. 2009) (district court has wide
latitude to weigh § 3553(a) factors in each case and assign some greater weight than
others to determine appropriate sentence).
We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the
appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the
judgment of the district court.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --