Court Opinion

ID: 6334989
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-04-26 16:00:58.155756+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:46.846954
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 21-3375
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America,

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

                                           v.

                        Valentino Giovanni McCampbell,

                      lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
                                       ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                    for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
                                  ____________

                            Submitted: April 20, 2022
                              Filed: April 26, 2022
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before COLLOTON, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                         ____________

PER CURIAM.

    Valentino McCampbell appeals a sentence imposed by the district court1 after
McCampbell pleaded guilty to a firearm offense. His counsel has moved to withdraw

      1
        The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.
and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the
court erred in applying enhancements for an offense involving a stolen firearm, and
for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense.

        We conclude that the district court did not err in applying the enhancements,
as the record supported the court’s findings that a firearm had been stolen, see
U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4), comment. (n.8(B)); United States v. Bates, 584 F.3d 1105,
1108-10 (8th Cir. 2009), and that McCampbell used the firearms to facilitate his drug
activities, see U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6), comment. (n.14(B)); United States v. Dixon,
822 F.3d 464, 465 (8th Cir. 2016).

      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, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
                       ______________________________

                                          -2-