United States v. Lucas McNulty-Snodgrass

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJuly 18, 2022
Docket22-1067
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Lucas McNulty-Snodgrass (United States v. Lucas McNulty-Snodgrass) 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.

Bluebook
United States v. Lucas McNulty-Snodgrass, (8th Cir. 2022).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 22-1067 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Lucas Michael McNulty-Snodgrass

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern ____________

Submitted: July 1, 2022 Filed: July 18, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Lucas McNulty-Snodgrass received a 210-month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). An Anders brief suggests that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). A pro se brief claims that Congress did not have the power to enact the two statutes that Snodgrass violated. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3; United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 616–17 (2000).

Snodgrass’s constitutional argument is foreclosed by precedent. See Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 9 (2005); United States v. Nash, 627 F.3d 693, 696–97 (8th Cir. 2010). And the substantive-reasonableness challenge is belied by the record, which establishes that the district court 1 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).

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 grant counsel permission to withdraw. ______________________________

1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, then Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, now retired. -2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
United States v. Morrison
529 U.S. 598 (Supreme Court, 2000)
United States v. Nash
627 F.3d 693 (Eighth Circuit, 2010)
Gonzales v. Raich
545 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 2005)
United States v. Feemster
572 F.3d 455 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Lucas McNulty-Snodgrass, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-lucas-mcnulty-snodgrass-ca8-2022.