Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03973/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03973-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Orrington Gardner
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3973

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Orrington Gardner, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 15, 2010

Filed: July 20, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Orrington Gardner appeals his felon-in-possession conviction and the 120-

month sentence imposed by the district court1

 following a jury trial. His counsel has

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

(1967), arguing that (1) the conviction was not supported by the evidence, and (2) the

district court erred in imposing a sentencing enhancement.

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

Appellate Case: 09-3973 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/20/2010 Entry ID: 3685161
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the jury’s verdict and

accepting all reasonable inferences that support the verdict, we conclude that the

evidence was sufficient to support Gardner’s conviction for being a felon in

possession of a firearm. See United States v. Coleman, 584 F.3d 1121, 1125 (8th Cir.

2009) (standard of review). Gardner stipulated to the prior-felony-conviction and

interstate-commerce elements of the offense; and there was sufficient circumstantial

evidence that he possessed a gun because police officers testified that they found a

gun that appeared to have been recently dropped in the direct path of Gardner’s 50-

yard flight from police, and only the police and Gardner were present at the scene. 

See United States v. Lofton, 557 F.3d 594, 596 (8th Cir. 2009) (elements of offense);

United States v. Light, 406 F.3d 995, 997-98 (8th Cir. 2005) (knowing possession of

firearm may be based on circumstantial evidence). 

We also conclude that the district court did not err in imposing a 4-level

sentencing enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony

offense under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6). In any event, we conclude that any error was

harmless because, after calculating the respective Guidelines ranges with and without

the enhancement, the court expressly stated that it would have imposed the same 120-

month sentence in either case. See United States v. Icaza, 492 F.3d 967, 971 (8th Cir.

2007) (where sentencing court pronounces identical alternative sentence, error in

calculating Guidelines range is harmless if it is clear that alternative sentence is based

on identifiable, correctly calculated Guidelines range). 

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

U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we

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

_____________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 09-3973 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/20/2010 Entry ID: 3685161