United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 25-1876 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Marlon T. Jordan

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ___________________________

No. 25-1878 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Marlon T. Jordan

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeals from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________

Submitted: September 25, 2025 Filed: September 30, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Marlon Jordan appeals the sentences the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a new drug offense pursuant to a written plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, and upon the revocation of the supervised release term he was serving for a prior firearm offense. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief challenging the sentences as substantively unreasonable.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, applicable, and enforceable as to the appeal from the sentence for the new offense. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing de novo the validity and applicability of an appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing the enforceability of appeal waivers). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the revocation sentence, as there is no indication that it failed to consider a relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors, and the revocation sentence was within the statutory maximum. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 916 (8th Cir. 2009) (abuse of discretion review); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (maximum revocation prison term is 2 years if underlying offense is Class C felony).

For the new drug charge, we have independently reviewed the record and found no non-frivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal waiver. See Penson v. Ohio,

1 The Honorable David Gregory Kays, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

-2- 488 U.S. 75 (1988). Accordingly, we affirm the sentence in No. 25-1878, dismiss the appeal in No. 25-1876, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________

-3-