On appeal from The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ">

Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 01-12-2022

Case Style:

United States of America v. Markell Jay Hamilton, also known as Poo

Case Number: 17-1378

Judge: Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM.


United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
On appeal from The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

Plaintiff's Attorney: United States Attorney’s Office

Defendant's Attorney:

St. Louis, MO - Best Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory

Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World.

Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement


MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.
MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge

Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800


St. Louis, MO - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant charged with drug possession.

Markell Hamilton directly appeals after the he pled guilty to a drug charge, and
the district court sentenced him to an above-Guidelines-range prison term. His
counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Hamilton has filed a pro se brief, arguing, as
relevant, that the district court plainly erred in calculating his criminal history score
by including his Illinois conviction for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, because
a portion of the relevant statute had been ruled unconstitutional by the Illinois
Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit.

Outcome: After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we
vacate Hamilton’s sentence and remand for resentencing for the district court to
consider Hamilton’s criminal-history argument in the first instance. We express no
opinion as to the merits of this argument, and we note that it is unclear from the
record whether Hamilton was convicted under a portion of the statute that has been
ruled unconstitutional. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Find a Lawyer


Find a Case