United States v. Lucas McNulty-Snodgrass
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.
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Submitted: July 1, 2022 Filed: July 18, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Lucas McNulty-Snodgrass, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-lucas-mcnulty-snodgrass-ca8-2022.