United States v. Aaron Sheets

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 10, 2025
Docket24-2281
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Aaron Sheets (United States v. Aaron Sheets) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Aaron Sheets, (8th Cir. 2025).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 24-2281 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Aaron Sheets

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

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

Submitted: January 6, 2025 Filed: January 10, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________

Before SMITH, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Aaron Sheets appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v.

1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the district court erred in applying a 2-level enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in applying the enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). See United States v. Rodriguez, 484 F.3d 1006, 1014 (8th Cir. 2007) (reviewing application of Guidelines de novo and factual findings for clear error). The district court correctly determined that the airsoft rifle was a dangerous weapon, and the court did not clearly err in finding it was connected to the drug offense. See United States v. Shelton, 82 F.4th 1294, 1295-96 (8th Cir. 2023) (BB gun was “dangerous weapon” within meaning of § 2D1.1(b)(1)); United States v. Peroceski, 520 F.3d 886, 888-89 (8th Cir. 2008) (for § 2D1.1(b)(1) to apply, government must simply show that it is not clearly improbable that weapon was connected to drug offense).

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. ______________________________

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
United States v. Emmanuel Rodriguez
484 F.3d 1006 (Eighth Circuit, 2007)
United States v. Peroceski
520 F.3d 886 (Eighth Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Robert Shelton
82 F.4th 1294 (Eighth Circuit, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Aaron Sheets, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-aaron-sheets-ca8-2025.