United States v. Anthony Kiefer

417 F. App'x 590
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJune 7, 2011
Docket11-1112
StatusUnpublished

This text of 417 F. App'x 590 (United States v. Anthony Kiefer) 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. Anthony Kiefer, 417 F. App'x 590 (8th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After Anthony D. Kiefer pleaded guilty to bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), the district court 1 sentenced him to 78 months in prison. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), questioning whether the district court properly applied a firearm enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C), and whether the sentence was reasonable. Kiefer has moved for appointment of new counsel on appeal.

Evidence submitted at the sentencing hearing shows that Kiefer fled the bank in a car and — after a brief chase — was apprehended by the police, who discovered a firearm next to the stolen currency in his car. Thus, we conclude that the district court properly applied the firearm enhancement, see United States v. Daniels, 625 F.3d 529, 534 (8th Cir.2010) (standard of review), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1706, 179 L.Ed.2d 637 (2011), because Kiefer possessed the gun while fleeing the scene of his crime, see U.S.S.G. § lB1.3(a)(l)(A) (relevant conduct under *591 Guidelines includes all of defendant’s acts or omissions that occurred “in the course of attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for” offense of conviction); § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C) (5-level increase applies if firearm was brandished or possessed). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (standard of review); United States v. Garcia, 512 F.3d 1004, 1006 (8th Cir.2008) (sentence within Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable on appeal).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, Kiefer’s motion for new counsel is denied, and the judgment is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

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. Daniels
625 F.3d 529 (Eighth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Garcia
512 F.3d 1004 (Eighth Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Feemster
572 F.3d 455 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
417 F. App'x 590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-anthony-kiefer-ca8-2011.