United States v. Tyrae McDonald

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedOctober 18, 2024
Docket24-1515
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Tyrae McDonald (United States v. Tyrae McDonald) 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. Tyrae McDonald, (8th Cir. 2024).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 24-1515 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Tyrae Ronzell McDonald

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa ____________

Submitted: October 15, 2024 Filed: October 18, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Tyrae McDonald appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to a firearm charge. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed

1 The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging an enhancement included in the calculation of the imprisonment range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual.

Upon careful review, we conclude the district court did not err by imposing the enhancement based on grand jury testimony admitted at sentencing. See United States v. Still, 6 F.4th 812, 817-19 (8th Cir. 2021) (noting consideration of grand jury testimony at sentencing has been “repeatedly upheld” given its indicia of reliability); United States v. Asalati, 615 F.3d 1001, 1006 (8th Cir. 2010) (noting “credibility findings are ‘virtually unreviewable on appeal’”).

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 grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm. ______________________________

-2-

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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
United States v. Asalati
615 F.3d 1001 (Eighth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Kenneth Still
6 F.4th 812 (Eighth Circuit, 2021)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Tyrae McDonald, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-tyrae-mcdonald-ca8-2024.