United States v. Raymond Clifton ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 07-3464
    ___________
    United States of America,                *
    *
    Appellee,                   *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                 * District Court for the
    * Eastern District of Missouri.
    Raymond L. Clifton,                      *
    * [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: July 6, 2009
    Filed: July 22, 2009
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Raymond Clifton appeals the district court’s1 judgment entered after a jury
    found him guilty of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d);
    brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18
    U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii); and being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of
    18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). The district court sentenced Clifton to a total of
    480 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release, and he appeals.
    1
    The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Missouri.
    In a brief under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), Clifton first
    challenges the admission of eyewitness identification evidence. We conclude that the
    district court did not err in denying Clifton’s motion to suppress the evidence, because
    the procedures used in obtaining the eyewitness identifications were not
    impermissibly suggestive or unreliable. See United States v. Jones, 
    535 F.3d 886
    , 891
    (8th Cir. 2008) (de novo review of denial of motion; witness’s identification of
    defendant is admissible unless it is based upon pretrial confrontation between witness
    and suspect that is both impermissibly suggestive and unreliable); United States v.
    Staples, 
    410 F.3d 484
    , 487 (8th Cir. 2005).
    We also conclude that the district court did not commit clear error at sentencing
    in denying an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. Clifton’s defense included an
    attempt to assert a justification defense, which was not tantamount to a constitutional
    challenge unrelated to the issue of guilt. See United States v. Rivera-Ordaz, 
    554 F.3d 724
    , 726 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review; defendant must show he clearly
    demonstrated acceptance of responsibility); cf. United States v. Crumley, 
    528 F.3d 1053
    , 1067-68 (8th Cir. 2008) (decision by district court as to whether defendant has
    accepted responsibility is largely factual question that turns on issues of credibility,
    and reviewing court will reverse only if decision was clearly erroneous; reduction is
    generally not appropriate if government goes through burden of proving its case at
    trial, unless defendant was merely ascertaining viability of issue unrelated to guilt
    such as constitutional challenge to statute).
    Following our independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    , 80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the
    judgment of the district court. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw on
    condition that counsel inform appellant about the procedures for filing petitions for
    rehearing and for certiorari; and we deny appellant’s request for a stay.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-3464

Judges: Wollman, Murphy, Melloy

Filed Date: 7/22/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024