United States v. Patrick Jefferson

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Patrick Jefferson

6 F. App'x 530

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedApril 26, 2001

Docket99-4030

StatusUnpublished

This text of 6 F. App'x 530 (United States v. Patrick Jefferson) 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. Patrick Jefferson, 6 F. App'x 530 (8th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Patrick Jefferson was convicted of conspiring to distribute and/or possess with intent to distribute cocaine, marijuana, and/or heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994). The District Court 1 sentenced him to 150 months imprisonment and 8 years supervised release. On appeal, his counsel raises three issues in a brief filed pursuant to Anders v. Califor nia, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Jefferson raises two issues pro se.

We reject seriatim the issues raised by Jefferson and his counsel. First, we find that the evidence was sufficient to support Jefferson’s conviction. See United States v. Grimaldo, 214 F.3d 967, 975 (8th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 939, 121 S.Ct. 330, 148 L.Ed.2d 265 (2000) and 531 U.S. 1081, 121 S.Ct. 784, 148 L.Ed.2d 680 (2001). Second, the prosecutor adequately articulated a race-neutral reason for exercising a peremptory strike against an African-American venireperson. See Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767-69, 115 S.Ct. 1769, 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995) (per curiam). Third, the District Court did not clearly err in applying an enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with the offense. See Brown v. United States, 169 F.3d 531, 532-33 (8th Cir.1999). Fourth, Jefferson’s retrial, after a hung jury in his first trial, was not barred by double jeopardy. See Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 38, 109 S.Ct. 285, 102 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988). Finally, Jefferson’s sentence does not violate Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). See United States v. Aguayo-Delgado, 220 F.3d 926, 934 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1026, 121 S.Ct. 600, 148 L.Ed.2d 513 (2000).

We have reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm *532 the judgment of the District Court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

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

PER CURIAM.

Patrick Jefferson was convicted of conspiring to distribute and/or possess with intent to distribute cocaine, marijuana, and/or heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994). The District Court 1 sentenced him to 150 months imprisonment and 8 years supervised release. On appeal, his counsel raises three issues in a brief filed pursuant to Anders v. Califor nia, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Jefferson raises two issues pro se.

We reject seriatim the issues raised by Jefferson and his counsel. First, we find that the evidence was sufficient to support Jefferson’s conviction. See United States v. Grimaldo, 214 F.3d 967, 975 (8th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 939, 121 S.Ct. 330, 148 L.Ed.2d 265 (2000) and 531 U.S. 1081, 121 S.Ct. 784, 148 L.Ed.2d 680 (2001). Second, the prosecutor adequately articulated a race-neutral reason for exercising a peremptory strike against an African-American venireperson. See Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767-69, 115 S.Ct. 1769, 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995) (per curiam). Third, the District Court did not clearly err in applying an enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with the offense. See Brown v. United States, 169 F.3d 531, 532-33 (8th Cir.1999). Fourth, Jefferson’s retrial, after a hung jury in his first trial, was not barred by double jeopardy. See Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 38, 109 S.Ct. 285, 102 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988). Finally, Jefferson’s sentence does not violate Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). See United States v. Aguayo-Delgado, 220 F.3d 926, 934 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1026, 121 S.Ct. 600, 148 L.Ed.2d 513 (2000).

We have reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm *532 the judgment of the District Court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 F. App'x 530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-patrick-jefferson-ca8-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack