United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-2120

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Charles Lynch Pettis

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota

 ____________

 Submitted: April 10, 2020

Filed: April 15, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BENTON, WOLLMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Charles Lynch Pettis appeals after the district court1 resentenced him pursuant

to this court’s remand order in United States v. Pettis, 888 F.3d 962 (8th Cir. 2018),

1The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.
cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 1258 (2019). Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,

this court affirms.

Counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as an abuse of discretion

and substantively unreasonable. In pro se briefs, Pettis asserts that his conviction is

invalid under Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019); the Armed Career

Criminal Act (ACCA) violates the Eighth Amendment; and appellate counsel was

ineffective for failing to raise both of those arguments in this court. He also contends

his indictment was defective, and his due process rights have been violated. 

This court concludes that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

resentencing Pettis, because the record reflects the district court properly considered

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455,

461-62, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (appellate court first ensures no significant

procedural error occurred, then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence

under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard). This court also concludes that Pettis

has not established he is entitled to plain-error relief under Rehaif, because, at a

minimum, he has not shown any error affected his substantial rights. See United

States v. Jawher, 950 F.3d 576, 579 (8th Cir. 2020) (reviewing Rehaif argument for

plain error because it was not first raised in district court; plain error review requires

defendant to prove (1) an error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial

rights); see also Rehaif, 139 S. Ct. at 2198 (“[W]e doubt that the obligation to prove

a defendant’s knowledge of his status will be . . . burdensome” because “knowledge

can be inferred from circumstantial evidence”) (internal citation omitted); United

States v. Cox, 796 Fed. Appx. 322 (8th Cir. 2020) (unpublished per curiam)

(concluding defendant could not show Rehaif error affected his substantial rights

because, inter alia, he had other convictions resulting in years of imprisonment);

United States v. Davies, 942 F.3d 871, 874 (8th Cir. 2019) (Rehaif requires only that

-2-
defendant knew, at the time he possessed firearms, that he had been convicted of a

crime punishable by more than one year in prison). 

Pettis’s Eighth Amendment claim is foreclosed by this court’s precedent so his

ineffective-assistance claim necessarily lacks merit. See United States v.

Montgomery, 701 F.3d 1218, 1224 (8th Cir. 2012) (ACCA sentence which fell at the

bottom of the Guidelines range did not violate Eighth Amendment). As to Pettis’s

remaining arguments, this court finds no basis for reversal. The court has

independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and

finds no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

______________________________

-3-