Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Stephen Lamar HEMPSTEAD, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-17
Citations: 83 F. App'x 155
Docket Number: No. 03-2576
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Stephen Lamar HEMPSTEAD, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 83
Pages: 155–156

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Stephen Lamar HEMPSTEAD, Appellant.
No. 03-2576.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2003.
Decided Dec. 17, 2003.
Paul W. Hahn, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Cape Girardeau, MO, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Felicia A. Jones, Federal Public Defender’s Office, St. Louis, MO, Stephen Lamar Hempstead, pro se, Manchester, KY, Defendant-Appellant.
Before BYE, BOWMAN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Stephen Hempstead appeals the sentence the District Court imposed after he pleaded guilty to possessing five grams or more of a substance containing cocaine base with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000). Hemp-stead's counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396,18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the District Court should not have classified Hempstead as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 because the relevant two prior felony convictions were for related drug offenses. We conclude that the District Court properly applied career-offender status to Hempstead because it is undisputed that the prior drug offenses were separated by an intervening arrest. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(c)(2) ("two prior felony convictions" means, in part, sentences for at least two qualifying convictions are counted separately in computing criminal history), § 4A1.2(a)(2) (prior sentences imposed in unrelated cases are counted separately) & cmt. (n.3) ("Prior sentences are not considered related if they were for offenses that were separated by an intervening arrest (i.e., the defendant is arrested for the first offense prior to committing the second offense).").
Upon our independent review under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
. The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.