-
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 Patrick Jefferson, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant.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-
Document Info
Docket Number: 99-4030
Judges: Bowman, Heaney, Arnold
Filed Date: 4/26/2001
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/6/2024