United States v. Anthony Mays

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Anthony Mays

416 F. App'x 574

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMay 4, 2011

Docket10-3385

StatusUnpublished

This text of 416 F. App'x 574 (United States v. Anthony Mays) 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 Mays, 416 F. App'x 574 (8th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Gene Mays was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2); attempting to kill a federal law enforcement officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111 and 1114; and carrying and using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(l)(A)(iii). The district court 1 denied his motion to suppress identification evidence and, after a jury found him guilty on all three counts, sentenced Mays to a total of 480 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. He appeals. 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), arguing that the district court erred in denying the suppression motion and in overruling Mays’s objection under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986).

We find no error in the denial of the motion to suppress because we agree with *575 the district court that the government’s evidence at the suppression hearing showed that the photographic lineups used to obtain the identifications were not impermissibly suggestive and that the identifications were reliable. See United States v. Jones, 535 F.3d 886, 889-91 (8th Cir. 2008). Further, the district court did not clearly err in finding that the government’s reasons for striking two venire persons were legitimate and nondiscriminatory, and therefore the Batson challenge fails. See United States v. Blaylock, 421 F.3d 758, 769-70 (8th Cir.2005).

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, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

1

. The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

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

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Gene Mays was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2); attempting to kill a federal law enforcement officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111 and 1114; and carrying and using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(l)(A)(iii). The district court 1 denied his motion to suppress identification evidence and, after a jury found him guilty on all three counts, sentenced Mays to a total of 480 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. He appeals. 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), arguing that the district court erred in denying the suppression motion and in overruling Mays’s objection under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986).

We find no error in the denial of the motion to suppress because we agree with *575 the district court that the government’s evidence at the suppression hearing showed that the photographic lineups used to obtain the identifications were not impermissibly suggestive and that the identifications were reliable. See United States v. Jones, 535 F.3d 886, 889-91 (8th Cir. 2008). Further, the district court did not clearly err in finding that the government’s reasons for striking two venire persons were legitimate and nondiscriminatory, and therefore the Batson challenge fails. See United States v. Blaylock, 421 F.3d 758, 769-70 (8th Cir.2005).

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, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

1

. The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

416 F. App'x 574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-anthony-mays-ca8-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack