United States v. Travon Blackman ( 2023 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-1543
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Travon Lavelle Blackman
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: July 24, 2023
Filed: July 27, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Travon Lavelle Blackman appeals after he pled guilty to a firearm offense.
The district court1 imposed an enhanced sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3147(1) to run
1
The Honorable Wilhelmina M. Wright, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota.
consecutively to an undischarged federal sentence. Having jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms the sentence.
Counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is substantively
unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately explain its reasoning for
running the enhanced sentenced consecutively to the undischarged sentence, and
procedurally unreasonable because the court did not explain how it applied U.S.S.G.
§ 5G1.3 in concluding the sentences should be run consecutively.
The sentence was neither procedurally, nor substantively, unreasonable. See
United States v. Pierson, No. 22-1918, 2023 WL 4442996, at *6 (8th Cir. July 11,
2023) (reasonableness of sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion). The district
court appropriately considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and adequately
explained its decision to run the instant and prior sentences consecutively. See
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc)
(procedural errors include failing to consider § 3553(a) factors and adequately
explain chosen sentence; abuse of discretion occurs 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. McDonald,
521 F.3d 975, 980 (8th Cir. 2008) (district court has “wide discretion” to order
sentence to be served consecutively to undischarged sentence); see also 18 U.S.C. §
3584(a), (b) (“if a term of imprisonment is imposed on a defendant who is already
subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment, the terms may run concurrently or
consecutively”; court should consider § 3553(a) factors in making such
determination); U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3; United States v. Latham, 667 Fed. Appx. 594,
595 (8th Cir. 2016) (unpublished per curiam) (noting district court need not twice
recite considerations under § 3553(a); court’s discussion of the relevant factors left
“no doubt” why it imposed a consecutive sentence).
-2-
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-