Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01790/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01790-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Turnage
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Rodney S. Webb, United States District Judge for the District

of North Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1790

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of North Dakota.

John Turnage, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 1, 2006

Filed: February 9, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found John Turnage guilty of possessing more than 5 grams of cocaine

base with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and the district

court1

 sentenced him to 360 months in prison and 8 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 Turnage has filed a pro se supplemental brief.

For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court and grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Appellate Case: 05-1790 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/09/2006 Entry ID: 2008033
-2-

First, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying Turnage’s

suppression motion. See United States v. Williams, 431 F.3d 1115, 1117 (8th Cir.

2005) (standard of review). While police are required to engage in some independent

verification of information provided to them by a previously unknown informant, they

did so adequately in this case. See United States v. Amaya, 52 F.3d 172, 173-74 (8th

Cir. 1995). Also, even if we assume for the sake of argument that Turnage made a

substantial preliminary showing that police intentionally or recklessly omitted facts

from the search warrant application that made it misleading, he did not make a

substantial preliminary showing that the application could not support a finding of

probable cause if the omitted facts had been included. See United States v. Wells, 223

F.3d 835, 838 (8th Cir. 2000).

Second, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support Turnage’s

conviction. See United States v. Barrow, 287 F.3d 733, 736 (8th Cir.) (standard of

review; elements of offense), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1024 (2002). In finding that

Turnage intended to distribute the crack, the jury was entitled to believe the

government witnesses’ testimony and disbelieve Turnage’s testimony. See United

States v. Fellers, 397 F.3d 1090, 1099 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 415 (2005).

Third, we conclude that the district court’s denial of Turnage’s downwarddeparture motion is unreviewable because the court stated that it recognized its

authority to depart. See United States v. Morell, 429 F.3d 1161, 1164 (8th Cir. 2005).

Finally, 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: 05-1790 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/09/2006 Entry ID: 2008033