Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03003/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03003-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Brian Bern
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3003

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

David Brian Bern, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 7, 2004

Filed: May 4, 2004

___________

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

David Bern appeals the district court’s1

 judgment entered after a jury found him

guilty of conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine (mixture)

and to manufacture 5 grams or more of methamphetamine (actual), in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and (B), and 846. In a brief filed pursuant to Anders

Appellate Case: 03-3003 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/04/2004 Entry ID: 1763318 
-2-

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Bern challenges the admission of a gun into

evidence at trial and the imposition of a role enhancement for sentencing purposes.

Following careful review, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s

admission of the gun found by law enforcement officials in a vehicle parked in front

of Bern’s home. See United States v. Johnson, 28 F.3d 1487, 1498 (8th Cir. 1994)

(reviewing for abuse of discretion district court’s decision to admit or exclude

evidence), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1098 (1995). Bern’s objection centered around the

government’s inability to identify the registered owner of the gun, a fact to which the

parties stipulated. Like the district court, we see no relationship between Bern’s

objection and the gun’s admissibility, and we find no violation of Brady v. Maryland,

373 U.S. 83 (1963). 

Turning to Bern’s sentence, we conclude that the district court did not clearly

err in adjusting Bern’s offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines upward 3 levels

for his role as a manager or supervisor of criminal activity involving 5 or more

participants. See U.S.S.G § 3B1.1(b); United States v. Zimmer, 299 F.3d 710, 723-24

(8th Cir. 2002) (standard of review; manager or supervisor need only have managed

or supervised one other participant of criminal conspiracy), cert. denied, 537 U.S.

1146 (2003). 

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the

district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3003 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/04/2004 Entry ID: 1763318