United States v. Kristopher Mitchell

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: November 5, 2021
• Docket: 21-1703
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 21-1703 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Kristopher Barnard Mitchell, also known as Christopher Mitchell

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central ____________

Submitted: November 2, 2021 Filed: November 5, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

Kristopher Mitchell appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

1 The Honorable James M. Moody Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Mitchell questions whether the district court properly imposed a 4-level enhancement for possessing the firearm in connection with another felony offense. Mitchell did not raise this challenge below, however, and we conclude that the district court did not plainly err in applying the enhancement. See United States v. Webster, 820 F.3d 944, 945 (8th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (standard of review); see also U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (increase by 4 levels if defendant used or possessed firearm in connection with another felony offense) & cmt. n.14(C) (defining “another felony offense”).

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 withdraw2 and affirm. ______________________________

2 We remind counsel, however, that Anders briefing must be done as an advocate for the appellant, and the brief must refer to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Penson, 488 U.S. at 80 (Anders brief must refer to anything in record that might arguably support appeal); Evans v. Clarke, 868 F.2d 267, 268 (8th Cir. 1989) (Anders briefing must be done as advocate).

-2-