United States v. Patrick Jefferson ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 99-4030
    ___________
    United States of America,                *
    *
    Appellee,                   *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                 * District Court for the
    * Eastern District of Missouri.
    Patrick Jefferson,                       *
    *       [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: April 6, 2001
    Filed: April 26, 2001
    ___________
    Before BOWMAN, HEANEY, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Patrick Jefferson was convicted of conspiring to distribute and/or possess with
    intent to distribute cocaine, marijuana, and/or heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846
    (1994). The District Court1 sentenced him to 150 months imprisonment and 8 years
    supervised release. On appeal, his counsel raises three issues in a brief filed pursuant
    to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), and Jefferson raises two issues pro se.
    1
    The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Missouri.
    We reject seriatim the issues raised by Jefferson and his counsel. First, we find
    that the evidence was sufficient to support Jefferson’s conviction. See United States
    v. Grimaldo, 
    214 F.3d 967
    , 975 (8th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 
    121 S. Ct. 330
    (2000) and
    
    121 S. Ct. 784
    (2001). Second, the prosecutor adequately articulated a race-neutral
    reason for exercising a peremptory strike against an African-American venireperson.
    See Purkett v. Elem, 
    514 U.S. 765
    , 767-69 (1995) (per curiam). Third, the District
    Court did not clearly err in applying an enhancement for possessing a firearm in
    connection with the offense. See Brown v. United States, 
    169 F.3d 531
    , 532-33 (8th
    Cir. 1999). Fourth, Jefferson’s retrial, after a hung jury in his first trial, was not barred
    by double jeopardy. See Lockhart v. Nelson, 
    488 U.S. 33
    , 38 (1988). Finally,
    Jefferson's sentence does not violate Apprendi v. New Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
    (2000).
    See United States v. Aguayo-Delgado, 
    220 F.3d 926
    , 934 (8th Cir.), cert. denied,
    
    121 S. Ct. 600
    (2000).
    We have reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    (1988), and we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
    affirm the judgment of the District Court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-