United States v. Colby Shannon, Jr., No. 24-1227 (8th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 24-1227 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Colby Lakeith Shannon, Jr. lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: September 13, 2024 Filed: September 18, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Colby Shannon, Jr. appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to firearm offenses under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(3) and 922(g)(9). His 1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was unreasonable. Shannon has filed a pro se brief challenging sections 922(g)(3) and 922(g)(9) as facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in imposing a sentence within the Guidelines range. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (in reviewing sentences, appellate court first ensures no significant procedural error occurred, then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard); United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (on appeal, within-Guidelines-range sentence may be presumed reasonable). We further conclude that Shannon’s facial challenges to sections 922(g)(3) and 922(g)(9) fail under plain-error review, as he has not demonstrated any error that was clear or obvious under current law. See United States v. Nunez-Hernandez, 43 F.4th 857, 859-61 (8th Cir. 2022) (reviewing facial constitutional challenge for plain error where it was raised for first time on appeal; to succeed, appellant has to show, among other things, that there was clear or obvious error under current law; case law must “provide a clear answer”). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. 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.
