United States v. Antonio Speed ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                   United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 14-1841
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Antonio Nathaniel Speed
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
    ____________
    Submitted: December 17, 2014
    Filed: December 22, 2014
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    A jury convicted Antonio Speed of one count of being a felon in possession of
    a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and the district court1 sentenced him
    1
    The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Missouri.
    to 84 months in prison, within the advisory Guidelines imprisonment range of 77-96
    months. Speed appeals his conviction and sentence, and his counsel has filed a brief
    pursuant to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967). In addition, Speed has filed
    a supplemental pro se brief. Addressing in turn each of the arguments raised in the
    briefs, we affirm.
    We first conclude that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the
    government, and resolving evidentiary conflicts in favor of the government, was
    sufficient to support the guilty verdict. See United States v. Spears, 
    454 F.3d 830
    ,
    832 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review). The government adduced evidence that
    Speed had prior felony convictions, and that a firearm seized during a search of his
    residence on July 11, 2013, was manufactured outside Missouri. See United States
    v. Brown, 
    422 F.3d 689
    , 691-92 (8th Cir. 2005) (felon-in-possession elements). We
    also conclude that the 84-month sentence imposed was not unreasonable, see United
    States v. Wanna, 
    744 F.3d 584
    , 589 (8th Cir.) (standard of review), cert. denied, 
    135 S. Ct. 125
    (2014); and we find no merit to Speed’s challenges to the jurisdiction of
    the district court over these criminal proceedings, and to the constitutionality of
    section 922(g), see United States v. White Horse, 
    316 F.3d 769
    , 772 (8th Cir. 2003)
    (subject-matter jurisdiction in every federal criminal prosecution comes from 18
    U.S.C. § 3231); United States v. Seay, 
    620 F.3d 919
    , 924-25 (8th Cir.2010) (rejecting
    Second Amendment challenge); United States v. Hill, 
    386 F.3d 855
    , 859 (8th
    Cir.2004) (rejecting Commerce Clause challenge). Speed’s remaining arguments
    concerning his lack of access to legal materials and the prosecutor’s closing argument
    are unpreserved, and are unsupported by a showing of prejudice.
    Finally, we have reviewed the record independently in accordance with Penson
    v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    , 80 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues.
    The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
    ___________________________
    -2-