United States v. Demetrius Kirksey

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 24-2331 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Demetrius Cortez Kirksey, also known as Demetrius Kirksey

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri ____________

Submitted: January 24, 2025 Filed: February 13, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________

Before BENTON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Demetrius Kirksey appeals after he pled guilty to robbery and firearm offenses, and the district court1 imposed a sentence within the United States Sentencing

1 The Honorable Sarah E. Pitlyk, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. Guidelines Manual range. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), discussing the voluntariness of the guilty plea and the reasonableness of the sentence.

After careful review, we conclude that Kirksey’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing him. See United States v. Colbert, 76 F.4th 1039, 1041 (8th Cir. 2023) (standard of review as to whether guilty plea was knowing and voluntary); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review as to reasonableness of sentence); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760-61 (8th Cir. 2014) (“A sentence which falls within the guidelines range is presumed to be reasonable[.]”). Further, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw and affirm. ______________________________

-2-