United States v. Vicente Young ( 2024 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2016
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Vicente V. Young
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau
____________
Submitted: November 8, 2024
Filed: November 14, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Vicente Young appeals the within-Guidelines sentence the district court 1
imposed after he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Having
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
1
The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of Missouri.
Counsel moved for leave to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was unconstitutional and
substantively unreasonable. Upon careful review, this court concludes that Young’s
constitutional challenge under N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1(2022), has been rejected by this circuit. See United States v. Anderson, 771 F.3d
1064, 1066-67 (8th Cir. 2014) (de novo review of constitutionality of federal
statute); United States v. Jackson, 110 F.4th 1120, 1125–26 (8th Cir. 2024) (rejecting
argument that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face and as applied
after Bruen). Next, this court concludes that the district court did not impose a
substantively unreasonable sentence, as it properly considered the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors; there is no indication that it overlooked a relevant factor, or
committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors; and the upward
variance was based on an individualized assessment of the facts. See United States
v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (abuse of discretion
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) (on appeal, reviewing court may presume sentence
within properly calculated guidelines range is reasonable).
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.
______________________________
-2-