United States v. Stephen Morais ( 2019 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 18-3686
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Stephen D. Morais
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
___________________________
No. 18-3687
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Stephen D. Morais
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeals from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
____________
Submitted: June 25, 2019
Filed: July 1, 2019
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, Stephen D. Morais challenges the prison
sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to failing to register as a
sex offender; and he challenges the consecutive prison sentence the district court
imposed upon revoking his supervised release. Morais’s counsel has moved for leave
to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
arguing that the sentences are substantively unreasonable.
After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a
substantively unreasonable sentence for either the new conviction or the revocation.
See United States v. McGhee, 869 F.3d 703, 705-06 (8th Cir. 2017) (per curiam)
(revocation sentencing decisions are reviewed under same standards as initial
sentencing decisions; substantive reasonableness of either type of sentence is
reviewed for abuse of discretion). The record reflects that, in determining each
sentence, the court considered and discussed relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, see
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (abuse of
discretion occurs in criminal sentencing when court fails to consider relevant factor,
gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of
judgment in weighing appropriate factors); United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 917
(8th Cir. 2009) (same for revocation sentencing); and imposed a sentence within the
Guidelines range, see United States v. St. Claire, 831 F.3d 1039, 1043 (8th Cir. 2016)
(within-Guidelines criminal sentence is accorded a presumption of substantive
reasonableness on appeal); United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir.
2008) (same for revocation sentence). We further conclude that the district court did
1
The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas.
-2-
not err when it ordered that the sentences be served consecutively. See U.S.S.G.
§ 5G1.3 comment. (n.4(C)) (recommending that a revocation sentence and a sentence
for a new offense run consecutively).
An independent review of the record reveals no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.
See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988). Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to
withdraw, and we affirm both sentences.
______________________________
-3-