United States v. Columbus Lawrence
This text of United States v. Columbus Lawrence (United States v. Columbus Lawrence) 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.
Opinion
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________
No. 20-2128 ___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Columbus Tre Lawrence, also known as Tre, also known as Country Lawrence
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________
Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern ____________
Submitted: February 26, 2021 Filed: March 4, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________
Before GRASZ, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________
PER CURIAM.
Columbus Lawrence appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to a firearm offense. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed
1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the district court’s application of United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)’s four-level enhancement to Lawrence’s advisory offense level for possession of a firearm in connection with another felony offense (Iowa Code § 724.4(1)).
Lawrence argues the district court erred in imposing the enhancement because the conduct leading to his conviction was the same conduct by which he could be held accountable under section 724.4(1). As Lawrence acknowledges, this argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Walker, 771 F.3d 449, 452-53 (8th Cir. 2014); see also United States v. Manning, 786 F.3d 684, 686 (8th Cir. 2015) (“A panel of this Court is bound by a prior Eighth Circuit decision unless that case is overruled by the Court sitting en banc.”).
Further, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion and affirm. ______________________________
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Columbus Lawrence, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-columbus-lawrence-ca8-2021.