United States v. Kingsley Ogbeide ( 2024 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-3146
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Kingsley Ogbeide, also known as James Oreye, also known as Emmanual
Richson, also known as King
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: March 19, 2024
Filed: April 5, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Kingsley Ogbeide appeals after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit
money laundering, and the district court1 sentenced him to 121 months in prison. See
18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), 1956(h). His counsel has moved to withdraw and has
filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Ogbeide has filed two pro se motions and
raises additional sentencing challenges in a pro se brief.
We conclude that Ogbeide’s sentence is substantively reasonable. See United
States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing the
reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard). The
record establishes that the district court considered the statutory sentencing factors
and did not overlook a relevant factor, give significant weight to an improper or
irrelevant factor, or commit a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); United States v. Wilcox, 666 F.3d 1154, 1156-57 (8th Cir.
2012) (explaining that a district court has wide latitude to weigh factors and does not
abuse its discretion by giving some factors less weight than a defendant prefers).
Further, we conclude that Ogbeide’s pro se arguments provide no basis for
relief. The district court was not bound by either party’s recommendation, see United
States v. Schiradelly, 617 F.3d 979, 981-82 (8th Cir. 2010) (per curiam); the
sentencing-disparity argument fails, see United States v. Heard, 91 F.4th 1275, 1280
(8th Cir. 2024) (statutory directive to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities refers
to national disparities, not disparities with co-conspirators); and the prison sentence
was not unconstitutionally excessive, see 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1) (maximum 20-year
prison sentence); United States v. Johnson, 751 F.2d 291, 295 (8th Cir. 1984). We
decline to address in this direct appeal any claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2006).
1
The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.
-2-
Finally, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment of the district court, we deny as moot the motion to quash and
proceed pro se, we deny the motion to appoint new counsel, and we grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-3-