United States v. Rico Willis ( 2024 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-2721
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Rico Marquez Willis
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Western
____________
Submitted: April 4, 2024
Filed: April 15, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Rico Willis appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded
guilty to a firearm offense. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has
1
The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, then Chief Judge, now United States
District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.
filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district
court erred in its Guidelines calculations by applying an enhancement under USSG
§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing the firearm in connection with another felony
offense.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court properly calculated the
Guidelines range. See United States v. Turner, 781 F.3d 374, 393 (8th Cir. 2015)
(reviewing district court’s application of Guidelines de novo, and its factual findings
for clear error). Specifically, the record supported the district court’s finding that
Willis used the firearm in connection with other felony offenses, despite the fact that
the charges for these offenses were dismissed. See United States v. Dixon, 822 F.3d
464, 465 (8th Cir. 2016) (in applying § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) when defendant has not been
convicted of another felony offense, district court must find by preponderance of
evidence that another felony offense was committed, and that use or possession of
firearm facilitated that other felony); United States v. Turpin, 920 F.2d 1377, 1388
(8th Cir. 1990) (due process does not require right to trial by jury on each fact that
results in increase in sentence).
We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-