Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-03904/USCOURTS-ca8-15-03904-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nathaniel Burns
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-3904

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Nathaniel Burns

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport

____________

 Submitted: September 7, 2016

Filed: October 12, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

After Nathaniel Burns pleaded guilty to a drug conspiracy offense, the District

Court sentenced him to 240 months in prison, representing a downward variance

1

The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the

1

Southern District of Iowa.

Appellate Case: 15-3904 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/12/2016 Entry ID: 4457756 
from the calculated Guidelines range. Burns appeals, and his counsel has filed a brief

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the drug-quantity

calculation; the assessment of enhancements for possessing a firearm, aggravating

role, and a pattern of criminal conduct engaged in as a livelihood; and the denial of

an acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment. In pro se supplemental filings, Burns

challengesthe denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and further challenges

the firearm enhancement in light ofJohnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). 

For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 

We review a district court’s Guidelines determinations de novo and the

underlying factual findings for clear error. United States v. Turner, 781 F.3d 374,

393 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 208, 280, 493 (2015). We have reviewed the

record, including the testimony oflaw enforcement officials, confidential informants,

and cooperating witnesses introduced during the two-day sentencing hearing. We

uphold the District Court’s conservative drug-quantity finding, which was based on

testimony that the court deemed credible regarding drug quantities obtained from a

supplier, converted into cocaine base, and redistributed. See U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(c)(3); United States v. Young, 689 F.3d 941, 945 (8th

Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 902, 1475 (2013). Similarly, the enhancements

for possession of a firearm, aggravating role, and commission of the offense as part

of a pattern of criminal conduct engaged in as a livelihood were all supported by

witness testimony that the District Court found credible. See U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines Manual §§ 2D1.1(b)(1), (b)(15)(E) & cmt. n.20(C); 3B1.1(a); 4B1.3 cmt.

nn.1–2; United States v. Savage, 414 F.3d 964, 966 (8th Cir. 2005) (discussing

dangerous-weapon enhancement); United States v. Vasquez, 552 F.3d 734, 737 (8th

Cir. 2009) (discussing aggravating-role enhancement); United States v. Morris, 791

F.3d 910, 914–15 (8th Cir. 2015) (discussing assessment for “a pattern of criminal

conduct engaged in as a livelihood”). We also affirm the District Court’s decision to

deny an acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment, given the timing of Burns’s guilty

plea, his attempt to withdraw the plea, and his denial of offense conduct. See United

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-3904 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/12/2016 Entry ID: 4457756 
States v. Rodriguez, 741 F.3d 908, 912–13 (8th Cir.), cert. denied135 S. Ct. 133

(2014).

As for Burns’s pro se arguments, we find no support in the record for his

allegations that the District Court improperly participated in plea negotiations. 

Further, we find no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s decision—made

following a hearing—to deny Burns’s request to withdraw his guilty plea based on

his misgivings about sentencing and a belief that his attorney could counter certain

prosecution evidence. See United States v. Alvarado, 615 F.3d 916, 920–21 (8th Cir.

2010). Finally, the Supreme Court’s Johnson decision that Burns cites has no

application to his offense-level enhancement for possession of a firearm. 

We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous issuesfor review. Accordingly, we affirm

the judgment of the District Court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and

Burns’s motion to supplement his brief.

______________________________

-3-

Appellate Case: 15-3904 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/12/2016 Entry ID: 4457756