United States v. Kammeron Davis

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 24-3556

___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Kammeron Davis

Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________

Submitted: September 15, 2025 Filed: September 18, 2025 [Unpublished]

____________

Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Kammeron Davis appeals the judgment entered by the district court 1 after a jury found him guilty of robbery and firearm offenses. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

1 The Honorable Stephen R. Clark, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

(1967), discussing whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and whether the district court erred in admitting Davis’s prior robbery conviction and in denying his related motion for a mistrial. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Upon careful review, this court concludes that Davis’s prior robbery conviction was admissible. See United States v. Stenger, 605 F.3d 492, 499 (8th Cir. 2010) (evidence of other criminal acts is admissible if it is relevant to material issue, similar in kind and close in time to crime charged, proven by preponderance of evidence, and potential prejudice does not substantially outweigh its probative value). Further, the district court did not err in denying his related request for a mistrial. See United States v. Arias, 936 F.3d 793, 798 (8th Cir. 2019) (standard of review). Finally, this court concludes that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict. See United States v. Birdine, 515 F.3d 842, 844 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review).

Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), this court finds no non-frivolous issues for appeal.

The judgment is affirmed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

______________________________