Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04132/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04132-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Darius Saulsberry
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 04-4132/4133

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeals from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

Darius Saulsberry, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 4, 2005

Filed: October 10, 2005

___________

Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Darius Saulsberry pleaded guilty to possessing more than 5 grams of cocaine

base with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and a jury found

him guilty of assaulting a federal officer with a dangerous weapon, in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1). The district court1

 sentenced him to concurrent terms of

120 months in prison and 8 years of supervised release on the drug conviction and

90 months in prison and 2 years of supervised release on the assault conviction. On

appeal, Mr. Saulsberry’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under

Appellate Case: 04-4132 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/10/2005 Entry ID: 1961144
-2-

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). For the reasons discussed below, we

affirm.

First, counsel’s argument that the district court inadequately informed

Mr. Saulsberry of the 10-year mandatory minimum prison term for the drug charge

is refuted by the record. The district court advised Mr. Saulsberry during the

change-of-plea colloquy that his guilty plea would subject him to “a mandatory

minimum of ten years with a maximum of life” and later repeated that he would face

“imprisonment of not less than ten years.”

Second, counsel argues that the trial evidence was insufficient to support the

intent element of the assault conviction. We disagree. Viewed in the light most

favorable to the verdict, see United States v. Tensley, 334 F.3d 790, 793-94 (8th Cir.

2003), the evidence showed that Mr. Saulsberry knew the officer was standing along

the driver’s side of Mr. Saulsberry’s car, and that the officer would either have to get

out of the way or be struck when Mr. Saulsberry fled by turning the car sharply left

and accelerating. This evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find

Mr. Saulsberry guilty. See United States v. Street, 66 F.3d 969, 976-77 (8th Cir.

1995).

Third, counsel argues that the district court should have appointed new counsel

at sentencing in response to a pro se letter Mr. Saulsberry sent. We have reviewed

the claims in the letter and the performance of the attorney who represented

Mr. Saulsberry at his trial and sentencing, and we find no abuse of discretion by the

district court. See United States v. Exson, 328 F.3d 456, 460 (8th Cir.), cert. denied,

540 U.S. 1011 (2003).

Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75 (1988), we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. 

Appellate Case: 04-4132 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/10/2005 Entry ID: 1961144
-3-

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-4132 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/10/2005 Entry ID: 1961144