United States of America v. Keylynn Landon Goldsmith

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1348
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Keylynn Landon Goldsmith
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: July 10, 2025
Filed: July 18, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before ERICKSON, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Keylynn Landon Goldsmith appeals after he pleaded guilty to a firearm offense
and escaping from custody, and the district court1 imposed a prison sentence to run
1The Honorable C.J. Williams, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the
Northern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

consecutively to an undischarged state sentence. In a counseled brief under Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and a pro se brief, Goldsmith challenges the
decision to impose the sentence consecutively.
Upon careful review, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion
in imposing the sentence consecutively. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a); U.S.S.G.
§ 5G1.3(d), & comment. (n.4(A)); United States v. Nelson, 982 F.3d 1141, 1144,
1146 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard of review). The district court considered the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors, the record, and Goldsmith’s argument in favor of a partially-
concurrent sentence, and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See United
States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (district court
abuses its discretion when it fails to consider a relevant factor that should have
received significant weight, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant
factor, or commits a clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors); see also
United States v. Hall, 825 F.3d 373, 376 (8th Cir. 2016) (no abuse of discretion where
district court considered § 3553(a) factors and recognized its discretion to run
sentences concurrently but declined to do so); United States v. McDonald, 521 F.3d
975, 980 (8th Cir. 2008) (district court has “wide discretion” to order sentence to be
served consecutively to undischarged sentence). To the extent Goldsmith intended
in his pro se brief to raise a challenge to the computation of his state sentence, we
decline to consider the argument. See Wever v. Lincoln Cnty., Neb., 388 F.3d 601,
608 (8th Cir. 2004) (this court will not consider arguments raised for first time on
appeal).
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, counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and
Goldsmith’s motion to appoint new counsel is denied as moot.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --