Case Name: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Lance Bradley WILLIAMS, also known as Crush, also known as Lil'Crush Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-13
Citations: 698 F. App'x 853
Docket Number: No. 17-1035
Parties: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Lance Bradley WILLIAMS, also known as Crush, also known as Lil’Crush Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 698
Pages: 853–854

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Lance Bradley WILLIAMS, also known as Crush, also known as Lil’Crush Defendant-Appellant
No. 17-1035
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: October 4, 2017
Filed: October 13, 2017
Aaron L. Jennen, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Candace L. Taylor, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Lance Bradley Williams, Pro Se
Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Lance Williams pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of a child, 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a), (c), 1594(c), and the District Court sentenced him to 120 months in prison. On appeal, in a brief filed in accordance with Anders v. Califor nia, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Williams's counsel challenges the District Court's application of sentence enhancements under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2G1.3(b)(3) and 4B1.5(b)(l), and Williams echoes the challenge to the latter enhancement in a pro se supplemental brief.
We have reviewed the evidence introduced at the sentencing hearing, which included testimony that Williams used a cellular telephone to place website advertisements soliciting persons to engage in sexual conduct with the minor and testimony that Williams facilitated several acts of prostitution involving the minor over the course of the conspiracy. We find no error in the application of either enhancement. See United States v. Kramer, 631 F.3d 900, 902 (8th Cir.) (setting forth the standard of review and applying Guidelines § 2G1.3(b)(3)), cert. denied, 563 U.S. 1039, 131 S.Ct. 2977, 180 L.Ed.2d 258 (2011); United States v. Rojas, 520 F.3d 876, 883 (8th Cir. 2008) (applying Guidelines § 4B1.5(b)). In addition, we have reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues.
We affirm the judgment and grant counsel's motion to withdraw.
. The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.