United States of America v. Brett Michaels Chilton

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1432
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Brett Michaels Chilton
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau
____________
Submitted: October 3, 2025
Filed: October 8, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, BENTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM.
Brett Michaels Chilton appeals after he pled guilty to being a felon in
possession of a firearm and the district court1 imposed a below-Guidelines-range
sentence. 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), challenging the denial of Chilton’s motion to
suppress, the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, and the constitutionality of
his offense of conviction. Chilton has filed a pro se brief arguing that the court erred
in not accounting for time he served in federal custody.
Upon careful review, this court concludes that counsel’s argument challenging
the denial of the suppression motion asserts a nonjurisdictional defect or error that
was waived by Chilton’s guilty plea. See United States v. Arrellano, 213 F.3d 427,
430 (8th Cir. 2000) (concluding defendant waived right to appeal denial of motion
to suppress because he did not enter conditional guilty plea reserving right to appeal
the motion); see also United States v. Limley, 510 F.3d 825, 827-28 (8th Cir. 2007)
(intent by parties to enter into conditional plea to preserve specific issue for appellate
review must be manifested by writing and approved by court; pleas are otherwise
presumptively unconditional). This court also concludes that the district court did not
impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as it properly considered the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors, and there is no indication that it overlooked a relevant factor, or
committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States
v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (abuse of discretion review);
see also United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2009) (when district
court varies below Guidelines range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that it abused its
1The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Missouri.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

discretion in not varying further downward). Chilton’s facial challenge to 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) is foreclosed by United States v. Jackson, 110 F.4th 1120 (8th Cir. 2024);
see also United States v. Winston, 850 F.3d 377, 380 (8th Cir. 2017) (plain error
review). As to Chilton’s pro se argument, we conclude the district court did not
plainly err in declining to credit him for time served because the court lacked
authority to award such credit. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b); United States v. Pardue, 363
F.3d 695, 699 (8th Cir. 2004); see also Winston, 850 F.3d at 380.
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.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --