United States v. Kelvin Stanford


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Roger L. Wollman, Pasco M. Bowman and Raymond W. Gruender (UNPUBLISHED) [4022144] [12-3575]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-3575 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Kelvin Maximillion Stanford lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: March 7, 2013 Filed: April 5, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Kelvin Stanford appeals after he pled guilty to drug and firearm offenses and the district court1 imposed a within-Guidelines-range sentence. Stanford’s counsel has 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. Appellate Case: 12-3575 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2013 Entry ID: 4022144 moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court committed an error in calculating Stanford’s Guidelines range, imposed an unreasonable sentence, and plainly erred in imposing a special condition of supervised release. First, we conclude that there is no merit to counsel’s argument challenging the district court’s Guidelines calculations. See United States v. Swanson, 610 F.3d 1005, 1007-08 (8th Cir. 2010) (district court’s Guidelines applications are reviewed de novo and its factual findings are reviewed for clear error; application of firearm enhancement requires district court to make finding that gun facilitated or had potential to facilitate drug possession; facilitation requirement “may be met when a defendant concurrently possesses drugs and a firearm while in public, like in a car”). Second, we find no basis for concluding that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an unreasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (discussing appellate court review of sentencing decision under abuse-of-discretion standard; noting that appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness to within-Guidelines-range sentence). Third, we conclude that the district court did not plainly err in imposing an alcohol ban as a special condition of Stanford’s supervised release. See United States v. Roberts, 687 F.3d 1096, 1100-01 (8th Cir. 2012) (upholding alcohol ban for daily, heavy user of marijuana, because alcohol use limits recovering person’s ability to maintain drug-free lifestyle). Finally, having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 12-3575 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/05/2013 Entry ID: 4022144

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?