Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03000/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03000-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Myron Lockwood Gill
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3000

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Southern

v. * District of Iowa.

*

Myron Lockwood Gill, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 24, 2004

Filed: July 1, 2004 

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Myron Lockwood Gill challenges his convictions

and the sentence imposed by the district court*

 after a jury found Gill guilty of being

a felon in possession of a firearm and knowingly possessing an unregistered sawedoff shotgun. Gill’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the district court committed clear error in

denying Gill an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction because Gill admitted his guilt

Appellate Case: 03-3000 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/01/2004 Entry ID: 1783645 
-2-

during the traffic stop that led to his arrest. In his pro se brief, Gill contends he was

unfairly and prejudicially denied pretrial release; the district court committed error

in denying his suppression motion; the government failed to establish beyond a

reasonable doubt he possessed a shotgun; a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

agent should not have been allowed to testify on fingerprinting issues; the district

court gave the jury a confusing answer when asked whether knowing an item was in

one’s presence qualified as possession; his presentence report contained one-sided

information; and he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Gill also seeks new

appellate counsel.

The district court did not commit clear error in denying Gill an acceptance-ofresponsibility reduction. Although Gill admitted before his arrest the shotgun was

his, he put the government to its burden at trial by later denying possession of the

shotgun underlying his convictions. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.2); United

States v. Ervasti, 201 F.3d 1029, 1043 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review).

We also reject Gill's pro se arguments. Gill never sought an expedited appeal

of the detention order, and the issue is now moot. The denial of Gill’s suppression

motion is supported by testimony that the driver of the car in which Gill was riding

reported during a valid traffic stop that a shotgun was in the car and Gill later

spontaneously admitted to police the weapon was his. See United States v. Linkous,

285 F.3d 716, 719 (8th Cir. 2002) (traffic stop); United States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d

746, 748 (8th Cir. 2002) (credibility of witnesses); United States v. Morgan, 270 F.3d

625, 630 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard of review), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 849 (2002);

United States v. Hawkins, 102 F.3d 973, 975 (8th Cir. 1996) (spontaneous

admission), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1179 (1997). We also conclude sufficient evidence

supported both jury verdicts; Gill’s ineffective-assistance claims are more properly

raised in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings, see United States v. Santana, 150 F.3d 860,

863 (8th Cir. 1998); and his remaining pro se arguments lack merit. 

Appellate Case: 03-3000 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/01/2004 Entry ID: 1783645 
-3-

Having carefully reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. We thus affirm the district court. We also

grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we deny Gill’s motion for new appellate

counsel.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3000 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/01/2004 Entry ID: 1783645