United States v. Augustus Light ( 2022 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 21-2659
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Augustus Quintrell Light
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
___________________________
No. 21-2677
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Augustus Quintrell Light, also known as Stow
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeals from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: April 18, 2022
Filed: April 28, 2022
[Unpublished]
____________
Before KELLY, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Augustus Light received a 120-month prison sentence for possession with
intent to distribute methamphetamine and an additional 18 months for violating the
conditions of supervised release. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A); see also 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). In an Anders brief, Light’s counsel suggests that neither
sentence is substantively reasonable. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
A supplemental pro se brief raises several other issues.
Neither Light nor his counsel has raised any meritorious issues. Light’s guilty
plea in the drug-possession case was knowing and voluntary, see Nguyen v. United
States, 114 F.3d 699, 703–05 (8th Cir. 1997); the 120-month sentence he received
was substantively reasonable, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461–62
(8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); and he cannot pursue the suppression of evidence after
pleading guilty, see United States v. Limley, 510 F.3d 825, 827 (8th Cir. 2007).
We did, however, spot one non-frivolous issue that we asked the parties to
address. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988). After reviewing their letter briefs,
we conclude that Light’s 18-month revocation sentence, combined with a previous
15-month sentence he received, exceeds the statutory maximum of 24 months. See
United States v. Hergott, 562 F.3d 968, 970 (8th Cir. 2009) (requiring the
aggregation of revocation sentences under the version of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) that
applied before the PROTECT Act took effect in 2003).
We accordingly vacate the sentence in the revocation case and remand for
resentencing, but otherwise affirm.
______________________________
-2-