United States v. Paul Allensworth, No. 10-2723 (8th Cir. 2011)

 Annotate this Case

Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. District court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for a mistrial based on a claim the prosecutor engaged in improper cross-examination of defendant.

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-2723 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Paul Tracy Allensworth, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: March 2, 2011 Filed: March 7, 2011 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Paul Tracy Allensworth appeals the district court s1 judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. ยง 841(a)(1). The district court sentenced Allensworth to 132 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court abused its discretion in denying Allensworth s motion for a 1 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. mistrial based on improper questions by the prosecutor during cross examination of Allensworth. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a mistrial. See United States v. Swift, 623 F.3d 618, 623 (8th Cir. 2010); United States v. Weaver, 554 F.3d 718, 723-24 (8th Cir. 2009); United States v. Boesen, 541 F.3d 838, 847 (8th Cir. 2008). Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, we grant counsel s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the district court s judgment. ______________________________ -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.