United States v. Joseph Henry

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 25-2020 ___________________________

United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Joseph Kenneth Henry lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

___________________________

No. 25-2028 ___________________________

United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Joseph Kenneth Henry lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________ Appeals from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Southern

____________ Submitted: January 15, 2026 Filed: January 21, 2026

[Unpublished] ____________

Before SMITH, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Joseph Henry appeals his sentence after a jury convicted him of firearm and escape offenses in two separate cases--instituted by separate indictments--which were consolidated prior to trial, and the district court1 sentenced him to 70 months in prison. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (sentences are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse of discretion standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors). The record establishes that the district court adequately considered the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (on appeal, within-Guidelines-range sentence may be presumed reasonable).

We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.