United States of America v. Jaylen Ester, also known as Sumo

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1147
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jaylen Ester, also known as Sumo
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
____________
Submitted: June 24, 2025
Filed: June 27, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Jaylen Ester appeals the above-Guidelines sentence the district court1 imposed
after he pleaded guilty to a drug conspiracy charge. His counsel has moved for leave
1The Honorable Lee P. Rudofsky, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.

-- 1 of 2 --

to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Upon careful review, we first determine 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). Next, we conclude 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. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374, 379 (8th Cir. 2009) (district court
has wide latitude to weigh relevant factors); United States v. Mangum, 625 F.3d 466,
469-70 (8th Cir. 2010) (upward variance was reasonable where court made
individualized assessment based on facts presented).
Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75
(1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm and grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --