Case ID: f-appx_691/html/0303-01.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. James Allen CRIPPEN Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-3735
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 26, 2017
    Filed: June 30, 2017
    Abram McGull, II, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Springfield, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    James Allen Crippen, Pro Se
    Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

After the district court denied his motion to suppress evidence, James Allen Crippen pleaded guilty to child-pornography offenses and was sentenced below the advisory Guidelines range. On appeal, Crippen’s counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging the denial of the suppression motion. Crippen’s unconditional guilty plea, however, forecloses our review of the suppression ruling. See United States v. Christenson, 653 F.3d 697, 699 (8th Cir. 2011). Further, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfriv-olous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of ⅛6 district court, and we grant counsel’s moti0n to withdraw, 
      
      . The Honorable M. Douglas Haipool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.