Court Opinion

ID: 9894358
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-01 16:00:44.502276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:28.884458
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 23-1358
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                                  Rodney D. Price

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                  for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
                                  ____________

                           Submitted: October 27, 2023
                            Filed: November 1, 2023
                                 [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Rodney Price appeals after a jury convicted him of child pornography offenses
and the district court1 sentenced him to 84 months in prison. His counsel has moved

      1
       The Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Missouri.
for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), challenging a pretrial evidentiary ruling. Price has filed a pro se brief
additionally challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and arguing that counsel was
ineffective.

       Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err by refusing
to admit evidence of an alternative perpetrator, as the evidence was speculative and
remote. See United States v. Emmert, 825 F.3d 906, 909 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard
of review); United States v. Thibeaux, 784 F.3d 1221, 1226 (8th Cir. 2015).

       As to the arguments in Price’s pro se brief, we conclude that there was
sufficient evidence to support his conviction. See United States v. Timlick, 481 F.3d
1080, 1082 (8th Cir. 2007) (standard of review); United States v. Spears, 454 F.3d
830, 832 (8th Cir. 2006). We decline to address his ineffective-assistance claim in
this direct appeal. See United States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746, 749 (8th Cir. 2002).

      We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
                      ______________________________

                                         -2-