Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-14-03309/USCOURTS-ca8-14-03309-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Vernice Charles Christian
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-3309

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Vernice Charles Christian

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith

____________

 Submitted: May 7, 2015

 Filed: May 12, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Vernice Charles Christian challengesthe district

court’s judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of two drug1

The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

1

the Western District of Arkansas. 

Appellate Case: 14-3309 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/12/2015 Entry ID: 4274207 
trafficking counts. Christian’s counsel has moved to withdraw, and in a brief filed

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel challenges the district

court’s denial--on the morning of the first day of trial--of Christian’s motion to

appoint new counsel. In a pro se supplemental brief, Christian contends that the

district court erred in failing to group the two drug counts for sentencing purposes.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying appointment of new counsel. The court properly inquired about

Christian’s dissatisfaction with counsel, and determined that he had not shown

justifiable dissatisfaction warranting new counsel. See United States v. Kelley, 774

F.3d 434, 438 (8th Cir. 2014). As to the pro se argument, at sentencing the district

court in fact grouped the offenses before applying the career-offender Guideline and

ultimately varying downward from the resulting Guidelines range based on the

court’s conclusion that the scope of the offenses in this case did not warrant a careeroffender sentence. 

Further, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel

leave to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Christian about procedures for

seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari. The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-3309 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/12/2015 Entry ID: 4274207