Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02760/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02760-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Quentin C. Adams
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2760

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Quentin C. Adams, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 5, 2006 

Filed: July 10, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Quentin C. Adams (Adams) guilty of one count of conspiring to

distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; two

counts of possessing with intent to distribute more than 5 grams of cocaine base in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); and one count of aiding and abetting the

distribution of cocaine base in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

The district court1

 sentenced Adams to a total of life imprisonment and 8 years’

supervised release. On appeal, Adams’s counsel filed a brief under Anders v.

Appellate Case: 05-2760 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/10/2006 Entry ID: 2065442
-2-

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and moved to withdraw. Adams filed a pro se

supplemental brief.

Counsel argues the district court abused its discretion by allowing evidence of

Adams’s 2000 Missouri conviction for second-degree drug trafficking under Federal

Rule of Evidence 404(b) because it was too remote in time from the instant offenses.

We find no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Love, 419 F.3d 825, 828 (8th

Cir. 2005) (standard of review; finding no abuse of discretion as to prior convictions

that were even more remote in time).

Adams argues the evidence is insufficient to support any of his convictions.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and giving the

government the benefit of all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the

evidence, as we must, we conclude the evidence is sufficient. See United States v.

White, 241 F.3d 1015, 1021-22 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard of review; elements of

conspiracy conviction); United States v. Rodgers, 18 F.3d 1425, 1429 (8th Cir. 1994)

(elements of possession-with-intent convictions); United States v. Ellefson, 419 F.3d

859, 863 (8th Cir. 2005) (elements of aiding-and-abetting conviction).

Finally, after reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488

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

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

withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2760 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/10/2006 Entry ID: 2065442