Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01431/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01431-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States
Appellee
Nathan Walker
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1431

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

Nathan Walker, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 25, 2008

Filed: May 6, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Nathan Walker guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), based on evidence that police officers found a

gun on Walker’s person while arresting him. The district court1

 entered judgment

upon the verdict and sentenced him to 120 months in prison and 2 years of supervised

release. Walker appeals, and his counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising an issue under Batson v.

Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Appellate Case: 07-1431 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/06/2008 Entry ID: 3430623
-2-

The matter proceeded to trial in November 2006. As relevant, during voir dire

the government exercised peremptory strikes against two of four black venire

members, all female, remaining in the venire pool after the strikes for cause had been

exercised. The defense challenged the strikes under Batson. Government counsel

then explained that he struck one venireperson because she said her son had been

arrested for a drug crime, and she appeared to take umbrage when a marshal asked her

to remove her hat. Defense counsel responded that she did not see the hat incident and

had no comment on the son’s arrest. Government counsel stated he struck the other

venireperson because she did not list any employment on the information form, and,

more important, she had a sister who was a correctional officer. When defense

counsel argued that unemployed white persons remained in the venire pool,

government counsel clarified that the venireperson he struck had orally stated she was

employed after failing to answer the written question about her employment, and in

any event it was her sister in corrections that distinguished her from the remaining

venirepersons. The district court then found the government’s explanations race

neutral and overruled the Batson objection. We conclude that the court did not clearly

err in finding there was no purposeful discrimination. See United States v. Blaylock,

421 F.3d 758, 769-70 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review; great deference given to

district court’s discrimination findings); see also Snyder v. Louisiana, 128 S. Ct. 1203,

1207-08 (2008) (discussing importance of trial court’s evaluation of prosecutor’s

credibility and demeanor, and juror’s demeanor).

Turning to arguments raised in Walker’s pro se appellate filings, we disagree

with his position that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him, and thereafter to

search him: the officers testified that during an investigative stop, Walker admitted

he had an outstanding warrant, pushed an officer, fled, and resisted arrest. See United

States v. Dawdy, 46 F.3d 1427, 1431 (8th Cir. 1995) (person’s response to even an

invalid arrest or stop may constitute independent grounds for arrest). To the extent

Walker wishes to challenge trial counsel’s effectiveness, he must do so in a

proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, where the record can be developed properly. See

Appellate Case: 07-1431 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/06/2008 Entry ID: 3430623
-3-

United States v. Cain, 134 F.3d 1345, 1352 (8th Cir. 1998). In addition, he cannot

succeed on a claim under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), based on his

contention that exculpatory evidence might exist. Last, Walker has not shown that the

district court was biased against him, or that the trial judge committed plain error in

not sua sponte recusing himself. See United States v. Sypolt, 346 F.3d 838, 839-40

(8th Cir. 2003) (unpreserved issue of judicial bias reviewed for plain error; defendant

failed to show district court’s failure to recuse was clearly improper and affected

defendant’s substantial rights).

Finally, we have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues.

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

motion to withdraw on condition that counsel inform appellant about the procedures

for filing petitions for rehearing and for certiorari. We deny Walker’s pro se motion.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1431 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/06/2008 Entry ID: 3430623