United States of America v. Dewayne Baker, also known as Wolf

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2586
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Dewayne Baker, also known as Wolf
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
____________
Submitted: November 5, 2024
Filed: November 8, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Dewayne Baker appeals the above-Guidelines sentence the district court1
imposed after he pled guilty to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a federal
1 The Honorable James M. Moody Jr., United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Arkansas.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
drug trafficking crime. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court
affirms.
Counsel moved for leave to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was substantively
unreasonable. Upon careful review, this court first determines that the appeal is
outside the scope of the appeal waiver in the written plea agreement. See United
States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of appeal waiver).
Next, this court concludes that the district court did not impose a substantively
unreasonable sentence, as it properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors;
there was no indication that it overlooked a relevant factor or committed a clear error
of judgment in weighing relevant factors; and the upward variance was based on an
individualized assessment of the facts. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455,
461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (abuse of discretion review); United States v.
Anderson, 90 F.4th 1226, 1227 (8th Cir. 2024) (district court has wide latitude in
weighing relevant factors); United States v. Mangum, 625 F.3d 466, 469-70 (8th Cir.
2010) (upward variance reasonable where court makes individualized assessment
based on facts presented).
Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), this court finds no non-frivolous issues for appeal.
The judgment is affirmed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --