Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03934/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03934-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Barry Mitchell Page
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3934

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Minnesota.

*

Barry Mitchell Page, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 17, 2007

Filed: July 27, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Barry Mitchell Page guilty of being a felon in possession of a

firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court1

sentenced him to 180 months in prison, the statutory minimum under 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(e), and five years of supervised release. Page appeals, raising six arguments.

After carefully reviewing the record and his submissions on appeal, we affirm the

judgment of the district court.

Appellate Case: 05-3934 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2007 Entry ID: 3334372
-2-

First, we conclude that the defense of entrapment did not require Page to be

acquitted and that the defense of outrageous government conduct did not require the

charges to be dismissed. See United States v. Cannon, 88 F.3d 1495, 1506 (8th Cir.

1996). Second, we conclude that the special-verdict form submitted to the jury did not

affect Page’s sentence. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(e)(1). Third, we conclude

that he has not met his burden to show that the government knowingly put on false

evidence or perjured testimony at trial. See United States v. Funchess, 422 F.3d 698,

701 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1452 (2006). Fourth, we conclude that

Page also has not met his burden to show that the government suppressed material

evidence favorable to his defense. See United States v. Cazares, 465 F.3d 327, 333

(8th Cir. 2006), petition for cert. filed, __ U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. Mar. 12, 2007) (No.

06-10088). Fifth, we conclude that the record as a whole shows that he was

sufficiently aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation when the

district court granted his motion to proceed pro se with standby counsel. See United

States v. Crawford, Nos. 06-3464/3465/3466, 2007 WL 1610468, at *3 (8th Cir. June

6, 2007). Sixth, we conclude that Page’s sentence is not cruel and unusual. See

United States v. Yirkovsky, 259 F.3d 704, 705-07 (8th Cir. 2001).

For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Finally, we

deny Page’s pending motion for “mandatory judicial notice.”

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3934 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/27/2007 Entry ID: 3334372