Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03930/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03930-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerome Marshall
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3930

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Jerome Marshall, also known as *

Raymond Mollo, also known as *

Ronald Mooney, also known as * [UNPUBLISHED]

Amos Smalls, also known as *

Howie Harband, also known as *

James A. Marshall, also known as *

J. Marshall, also known as James *

R. Marshall, also known as *

Raymond Mocco, also known as *

Ronald Money, also known as *

Dennis Moore, also known as *

Jerome Williams, also known as *

James Alexander Marshall, also *

known as Jermon C. Marshall, *

also known as Jerome C. Marshall, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 7, 2005

Filed: December 9, 2005

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

Appellate Case: 04-3930 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/09/2005 Entry ID: 1984104
1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

-2-

PER CURIAM.

Jerome Marshall pled guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent

to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The district court1 sentenced

him to 100 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. On appeal, his counsel

has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), and Marshall has filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Marshall and his counsel both argue that the district court erred by determining

that two of his prior convictions--for receiving stolen property and for credit card

fraud--were not related. We conclude that the court did not err because the

presentence report contained facts, to which Marshall did not object, which showed

that the offenses were separated by an intervening arrest. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2,

comment. (n.3); United States v. Newsome, 409 F.3d 996, 999 (8th Cir.), cert. denied,

126 S. Ct. 463 (2005).

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.

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

motion to withdraw. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3930 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/09/2005 Entry ID: 1984104