United States v. Aaron Meggs

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: October 29, 2021
• Docket: 21-2062
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 21-2062 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Aaron Meggs

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________

Submitted: October 19, 2021 Filed: October 29, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________

Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Aaron Meggs pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Applying the Armed Career Criminal Act, the district court1

1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. gave him a 180-month prison sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). In an Anders brief, counsel suggests that Meggs does not qualify as an armed career criminal and that, in any event, the district court lacked jurisdiction. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

On the first issue, we conclude that the district court did not plainly err in concluding otherwise, based on Meggs’s three prior serious drug offenses. See United States v. Boman, 873 F.3d 1035, 1040 (8th Cir. 2017) (reviewing an ACCA determination for plain error because the defendant did not object); Shular v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 779, 787 (2020) (explaining that a “serious drug offense” involves “manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to manufacture or distribute, a controlled substance”). And on the second, the Arkansas Sovereignty Act did not deprive the court of jurisdiction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3231 (giving district courts original jurisdiction over all federal offenses); see also United States v. Schostag, 895 F.3d 1025, 1028 (8th Cir. 2018) (stating that federal law governs in the event of a conflict with state law).

Finally, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude that no other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel permission to withdraw. ______________________________

-2-