United States v. Ferris Valentine

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 21-2261 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Ferris T. Valentine, also known as Christopher Scott Bush

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Southern ____________

Submitted: May 2, 2022 Filed: May 5, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________

Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Ferris Valentine received a 262-month sentence after a jury found him guilty of two counts of armed bank robbery. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), 2113(d), 2. An Anders brief suggests that the evidence was insufficient and the sentence is unreasonable. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). A pro se supplemental brief raises a host of other issues. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to allow the jury to find that Valentine committed both robberies. See United States v. Birdine, 515 F.3d 842, 844 (8th Cir. 2008) (articulating the standard of review); see also United States v. Rogers, 73 F.3d 774, 778 (8th Cir. 1996) (holding that “testimony at trial specifically connecting [a criminal defendant] to [a] bank robbery” was sufficient to uphold a jury verdict). We also conclude that the overall sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (stating that a within-Guidelines sentence is presumed reasonable). The record establishes that the district court1 sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461–62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc).

Valentine’s pro se arguments fare no better. There was no Due Process or Suspension Clause violation. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350–51 (1996); cf. Jones v. Hendrix, 8 F.4th 683, 689–90 (8th Cir. 2021). And Valentine received sufficient notice of the challenged enhancements that the district court correctly applied. See United States v. Okai, 454 F.3d 848, 850–51 (8th Cir. 2006).

Finally, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude that no other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court and deny both the request for oral argument and the pending pro se motions. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. -2-