Case ID: f-appx_698/html/0853-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Lance Bradley WILLIAMS, also known as Crush, also known as Lil’Crush Defendant-Appellant
    No. 17-1035
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: October 4, 2017
    Filed: October 13, 2017
    Aaron L. Jennen, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Candace L. Taylor, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Lance Bradley Williams, Pro Se
    Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Lance Williams pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of a child, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a), (c), 1594(c), and the District Court sentenced him to 120 months in prison. On appeal, in a brief filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Williams’s counsel challenges the District Court’s application of sentence enhancements under United States Sentencing Guidelines §§ 2G1.3(b)(3) and 4B1.5(b)(l), and Williams echoes the challenge to the latter enhancement in a pro se supplemental brief.

We have reviewed the evidence introduced at the sentencing hearing, which included testimony that Williams used a cellular telephone to place website advertisements soliciting persons to engage in sexual conduct with the minor and testimony that Williams facilitated several acts of prostitution involving the minor over the course of the conspiracy. We find no error in the application of either enhancement. See United States v. Kramer, 631 F.3d 900, 902 (8th Cir.) (setting forth the standard of review and applying Guidelines § 2G1.3(b)(3)), cert. denied, 563 U.S. 1039, 131 S.Ct. 2977, 180 L.Ed.2d 258 (2011); United States v. Rojas, 520 F.3d 876, 883 (8th Cir. 2008) (applying Guidelines § 4B1.5(b)). In addition, we have reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues.

We affirm the judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 
      
      . The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.