United States v. James Hawkins, Jr. ( 2024 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2349
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
James Edward Hawkins, Jr.
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: October 24, 2024
Filed: October 29, 2024
____________
Before LOKEN, SMITH, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
James Hawkins, Jr., appeals the within-Guidelines sentence the district court1
imposed after he pled guilty to escaping from custody. His counsel has moved for
leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 7381
The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.
(1967), arguing his sentence was substantively unreasonable and that the district court
plainly erred in calculating Hawkins’s criminal history.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in sentencing Hawkins, as it properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors; there was no indication that it overlooked a relevant factor, or committed a
clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors; and the sentence was within the
advisory Guidelines range. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th
Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review); United States v. Anderson, 90 F.4th 1226,
1227 (8th Cir. 2024) (district court has wide latitude in weighing relevant factors);
United States v. Miner, 544 F.3d 930, 932 (8th Cir. 2008) (appellate court may
presume sentence within properly calculated guidelines range is reasonable).
As to Hawkins’s argument that his criminal history should have been reduced
by 1 point, he did not raise this issue below, and we conclude that the district court
did not plainly err because Hawkins would remain in the same criminal history
category with a 1-point reduction, and thus the difference did not affect his
substantial rights. See United States v. Strubberg, 929 F.3d 969, 978 (8th Cir. 2019)
(unobjected-to error is reviewed for plain error; to prevail, defendant must show that
error affected his substantial rights); Molina-Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. 189,
194, 198 (2016) (plain error requires, inter alia, defendant to show reasonable
probability that outcome of proceeding would have been different).
Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-