United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 21-2659 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Augustus Quintrell Light

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ___________________________

No. 21-2677 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Augustus Quintrell Light, also known as Stow

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeals from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________

Submitted: April 18, 2022 Filed: April 28, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________ Before KELLY, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Augustus Light received a 120-month prison sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and an additional 18 months for violating the conditions of supervised release. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). In an Anders brief, Light’s counsel suggests that neither sentence is substantively reasonable. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). A supplemental pro se brief raises several other issues.

Neither Light nor his counsel has raised any meritorious issues. Light’s guilty plea in the drug-possession case was knowing and voluntary, see Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703–05 (8th Cir. 1997); the 120-month sentence he received was substantively reasonable, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461–62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); and he cannot pursue the suppression of evidence after pleading guilty, see United States v. Limley, 510 F.3d 825, 827 (8th Cir. 2007).

We did, however, spot one non-frivolous issue that we asked the parties to address. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988). After reviewing their letter briefs, we conclude that Light’s 18-month revocation sentence, combined with a previous 15-month sentence he received, exceeds the statutory maximum of 24 months. See United States v. Hergott, 562 F.3d 968, 970 (8th Cir. 2009) (requiring the aggregation of revocation sentences under the version of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) that applied before the PROTECT Act took effect in 2003).

We accordingly vacate the sentence in the revocation case and remand for resentencing, but otherwise affirm. ______________________________ -2-