United States v. Travon Blackman, No. 23-1543 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Benton, and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court adequately explained its decision to make defendant's sentence consecutive to an undischarged federal sentence, and the sentence imposed was not substantively unreasonable. [ July 26, 2023 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 23-1543 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Travon Lavelle Blackman lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: July 24, 2023 Filed: July 27, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Travon Lavelle Blackman appeals after he pled guilty to a firearm offense. The district court1 imposed an enhanced sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3147(1) to run 1 The Honorable Wilhelmina M. Wright, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. consecutively to an undischarged federal sentence. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms the sentence. Counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately explain its reasoning for running the enhanced sentenced consecutively to the undischarged sentence, and procedurally unreasonable because the court did not explain how it applied U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 in concluding the sentences should be run consecutively. The sentence was neither procedurally, nor substantively, unreasonable. See United States v. Pierson, No. 22-1918, 2023 WL 4442996, at *6 (8th Cir. July 11, 2023) (reasonableness of sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion). The district court appropriately considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and adequately explained its decision to run the instant and prior sentences consecutively. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (procedural errors include failing to consider § 3553(a) factors and adequately explain chosen sentence; 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); United States v. McDonald, 521 F.3d 975, 980 (8th Cir. 2008) (district court has “wide discretion” to order sentence to be served consecutively to undischarged sentence); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a), (b) (“if a term of imprisonment is imposed on a defendant who is already subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment, the terms may run concurrently or consecutively”; court should consider § 3553(a) factors in making such determination); U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3; United States v. Latham, 667 Fed. Appx. 594, 595 (8th Cir. 2016) (unpublished per curiam) (noting district court need not twice recite considerations under § 3553(a); court’s discussion of the relevant factors left “no doubt” why it imposed a consecutive sentence). -2- Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), this court finds no non-frivolous issues for appeal. The judgment is affirmed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________ -3-
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.
