United States v. Rodney Price

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: November 1, 2023
• Docket: 23-1358
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 23-1358 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Rodney D. Price

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________

Submitted: October 27, 2023 Filed: November 1, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Rodney Price appeals after a jury convicted him of child pornography offenses and the district court1 sentenced him to 84 months in prison. His counsel has moved

1 The Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging a pretrial evidentiary ruling. Price has filed a pro se brief additionally challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and arguing that counsel was ineffective.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err by refusing to admit evidence of an alternative perpetrator, as the evidence was speculative and remote. See United States v. Emmert, 825 F.3d 906, 909 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review); United States v. Thibeaux, 784 F.3d 1221, 1226 (8th Cir. 2015).

As to the arguments in Price’s pro se brief, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support his conviction. See United States v. Timlick, 481 F.3d 1080, 1082 (8th Cir. 2007) (standard of review); United States v. Spears, 454 F.3d 830, 832 (8th Cir. 2006). We decline to address his ineffective-assistance claim in this direct appeal. See United States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746, 749 (8th Cir. 2002).

We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________

-2-