United States of America v. Justin Ellis, also known as Jut

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2908
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Justin Ellis, also known as Jut
Defendant - Appellant
___________________________
No. 24-2945
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Justin Ellis
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
____________
Submitted: May 12, 2025
Filed: May 15, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
Before BENTON, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated cases, Justin Ellis appeals the sentences the district
court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a new drug offense, and his supervised
release for a prior offense was revoked. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
this court affirms.
Ellis’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief
challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentences. Upon careful review,
this court concludes that the district court did not impose a substantively
unreasonable sentence for the new offense, as it properly considered the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors; there is no indication that it overlooked a relevant factor, or
committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors; and the sentence
was within the advisory Guidelines range. 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. Miner, 544 F.3d 930, 932 (8th Cir. 2008)
(appellate court may presume sentence within properly calculated Guidelines range
is reasonable). This court also concludes that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing the revocation sentence, as there is no indication that it failed
to consider a relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factor, gave significant weight to an
improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing
relevant factors, and the revocation sentence was within the statutory maximum. See
United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 916 (8th Cir. 2009) (abuse of discretion
review); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (maximum revocation prison term is 2 years if
underlying offense is Class C felony); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) (district court
may impose consecutive or concurrent sentences).
1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --