United States v. Marcius Haywood

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 25-3273 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Marcius Haywood lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________ Submitted: May 20, 2026 Filed: May 26, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM.

Marcius Haywood appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense pursuant to a written plea agreement. His counsel The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

After careful review, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Haywood. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review); see also United States v. Timberlake, 679 F.3d 1008, 1012 (8th Cir. 2012) (district court is presumed to have considered mitigating factors counsel discussed at sentencing and has substantial latitude to weigh sentencing factors); United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting that it is “nearly inconceivable” that the district court abused its discretion in not varying further when it varied below the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual range). Further, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm. ______________________________

-2-