United States v. Marvin Spencer

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Marvin Spencer

697 F. App'x 471

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 12, 2017

Docket16-3435

StatusUnpublished

This text of 697 F. App'x 471 (United States v. Marvin Spencer) 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. Marvin Spencer, 697 F. App'x 471 (8th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Marvin Spencer was found guilty of robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, and being a felon in possession of ammunition, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 922(g)(1), 924(c), and 1951. The district court 1 sentenced Spencer to 257 months in prison. On appeal, counsel challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the reasonableness of the *472 sentence in a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). In his pro se brief Spencer challenges the district court’s jurisdiction, counsel’s effectiveness, and his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction in light of Johnson v. United States, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

The evidence at trial showed that Spencer and an associate took $58,358.50 worth of jewelry from a Minnesota store, and that Spencer shot a store employee in the leg and fired additional shots in the air during the robbery. The evidence included eye-witness testimony, video surveillance footage, and Spencer’s admissions, which overwhelmingly supported the verdict. This court’s review .of the record shows that Spencer’s sentence was not unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 460-61 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review). Spencer’s challenge to the district court’s jurisdiction based on alleged indictment defects is meritless, his claim of ineffective assistance is best deferred for collateral proceedings. See United States v. Looking Cloud, 419 F.3d 781, 788-89 (8th Cir. 2005). His Johnson-based challenge to his section 924(c) conviction is foreclosed by United States v. Prickett, 839 F.3d 697, 699 (8th Cir. 2016) (per curiam), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Dec. 30, 2016) (No. 16-7373).

This court has reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and finds no non-frivolous issues.

The judgment is affirmed, counsel’s request to withdraw is granted, and Spencer’s pending pro se motions are denied as moot.

1

. The Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

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

PER CURIAM.

Marvin Spencer was found guilty of robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, and being a felon in possession of ammunition, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 922(g)(1), 924(c), and 1951. The district court 1 sentenced Spencer to 257 months in prison. On appeal, counsel challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the reasonableness of the *472 sentence in a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). In his pro se brief Spencer challenges the district court’s jurisdiction, counsel’s effectiveness, and his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction in light of Johnson v. United States, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

The evidence at trial showed that Spencer and an associate took $58,358.50 worth of jewelry from a Minnesota store, and that Spencer shot a store employee in the leg and fired additional shots in the air during the robbery. The evidence included eye-witness testimony, video surveillance footage, and Spencer’s admissions, which overwhelmingly supported the verdict. This court’s review .of the record shows that Spencer’s sentence was not unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 460-61 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review). Spencer’s challenge to the district court’s jurisdiction based on alleged indictment defects is meritless, his claim of ineffective assistance is best deferred for collateral proceedings. See United States v. Looking Cloud, 419 F.3d 781, 788-89 (8th Cir. 2005). His Johnson-based challenge to his section 924(c) conviction is foreclosed by United States v. Prickett, 839 F.3d 697, 699 (8th Cir. 2016) (per curiam), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Dec. 30, 2016) (No. 16-7373).

This court has reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and finds no non-frivolous issues.

The judgment is affirmed, counsel’s request to withdraw is granted, and Spencer’s pending pro se motions are denied as moot.

1

. The Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

697 F. App'x 471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-marvin-spencer-ca8-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack