United States v. Marty Crafton
This text of United States v. Marty Crafton (United States v. Marty Crafton) 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. 97-2499 ___________
United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Marty Linn Crafton, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * ___________
Submitted: March 26, 1998 Filed: April 15, 1998 ___________
Before McMILLIAN, FLOYD R. GIBSON, and BEAM, Circuit Judges. ___________
PER CURIAM.
An indictment charged Marty Linn Crafton with being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). After a jury found him guilty, the district court1 sentenced him to 210 months in prison. Crafton appeals his conviction, and his counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.
1 The Honorable Stephen M. Reasoner, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. At trial, Crafton stipulated he had been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; a number of witnesses testified they observed Crafton holding a gun one evening during a scuffle at an Arkansas bar; and the bar owner testified he took the gun from Crafton and gave it to the police. In addition, an agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms testified that the gun had been manufactured in Massachusetts. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude the government met its burden of proof. See United States v. Horsman, 114 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 1997) (elements of § 922(g)(1) offense), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 702 (1998); United States v. Balanga, 109 F.3d 1299, 1301 (8th Cir. 1997) (standard of review). After reviewing the record for any nonfrivolous issues in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and having found none, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-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. Marty Crafton, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-marty-crafton-ca8-1998.