United States v. Johnny Hill, Jr., No. 23-2822 (8th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Stras, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant'sentence, which the court ran consecutively to undischarged state sentences, was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 23-2822 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Johnny Mack Hill, Jr. lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: March 7, 2024 Filed: March 12, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Johnny Mack Hill appeals after he pleaded guilty to drug and firearm offenses, and the district court1 imposed a prison sentence to run consecutively to undischarged 1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. state sentences. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable. We conclude that the sentence was not unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review). The district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the undischarged state sentence, and Hill’s argument against running the sentences consecutively; and there is no indication that the court failed to consider a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing an appropriate factor. See id.; 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 United States v. Hall, 825 F.3d 373, 376 (8th Cir. 2016) (no abuse of discretion where district court considered § 3553(a) factors and recognized its discretion to run sentences concurrently but declined to do so). This court has reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and has found no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
